Mathematics Education – An Asian Perspective

Catherine P. Vistro-Yu
Tin Lam Toh   Editors

School
Mathematics
Curricula
Asian Perspectives and Glimpses of
Reform
Mathematics Education – An Asian
Perspective

Series Editors
Berinderjeet Kaur, National Institute of Education, Singapore, Singapore
Catherine Vistro-Yu, Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, Philippines
Aims and Scope

Mathematics Education – An Asian Perspective facilitates high quality publications

on rigorous aspects of mathematics education in Asia. This will be achieved by
producing thematic books that capture knowledge and practices on mathematics
education in Asia from both the insider and outsider perspectives. The series helps
to establish a much needed Asian perspective to mathematics education research in
the international landscape.
Over the last decade or so, several international comparative studies have shed
light on systems of schooling that were otherwise not very much sought after.
Several educational systems in Asia, in particular East Asia have consistently
produced stellar outcomes for mathematics in both TIMSS and PISA despite the
fact that both studies measure achievement in mathematics in distinct ways that are
very much orthogonal to each other, while other Asian systems have not been able
to replicate the same level of success. Though one may occasionally chance upon a
publication on some aspect of mathematics education in Asia, there appears to be in
general a dearth of publications on mathematics education in Asian countries from
the perspectives of scholars from Asia. Hence it is apparent that there is a gap in the
availability of knowledge on mathematics education from the region in the
international space.
This series has a wide scope with emphasis on relevancy and timeliness. It
encompasses the general trends in educational research such as theory, practice and
policy. Books in the series are thematic and focus both on macro and micro topics.
An example of a themed book on a macro topic could be one on “School
mathematic curricula – An Asian perspective” while a themed book on a micro
topic could be one on “The pedagogy of ‘simultaneous equations’ in Asian
classrooms”.
Researchers interested in authoring or editing a book for the series can contact
the series editors:
Berinderjeet Kaur: [email protected] Catherine Vistro-Yu:
[email protected]
Book proposals for this series may also be submitted to Executive Editor: Nick
Melchior Email: [email protected]

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11679

Catherine P. Vistro-Yu Tin Lam Toh
•

Editors

School Mathematics
Curricula
Asian Perspectives and Glimpses of Reform

123
Editors
Catherine P. Vistro-Yu Tin Lam Toh
Ateneo de Manila University National Institute of Education
Quezon City, Philippines Nanyang Technological University
Singapore, Singapore

ISSN 2366-0155 ISSN 2366-0163 (electronic)

Mathematics Education – An Asian Perspective
ISBN 978-981-13-6310-8 ISBN 978-981-13-6312-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6312-2

Library of Congress Control Number: 2019930972

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721,
Singapore
Series Editors’ Introduction

As the fourth volume of the book series Mathematics Education: An Asian

Perspective, the book entitled, “School Mathematics Curricula—Asian Perspectives
and Glimpses of Reform,” and edited by Catherine P. Vistro-Yu and Tin Lam Toh,
is a timely addition to the current literature on school mathematics curricula. It
provides educators and researchers with useful and up-to-date information about
some Asian countries’ past and current endeavors in revitalizing their school
mathematics curricula, offering insightful analyses and honest reflections of their
experiences. The book demystifies the stereotypical high-performing Asian coun-
tries as the chapters shed light on the internal struggles and challenges that these
countries faced, with some ably overcoming these and others not.
Professor Law Huk Yuen, from The Chinese University of Hong Kong, notes
how the book “brings forth some of the fundamental issues in mathematics edu-
cation and how these have been perceived from various Asian perspectives. These
include the gap between school mathematics and university mathematics as well as
between real life experiencing and mathematising, the tension between
product-oriented approach and product-process-oriented approach, the challenges
of top-down and bottom-up approach in the teaching and curriculum reform.” This
book contains a wide collection of curricular reform initiatives that enrich the
existing discussions and understandings about school mathematics curricula.
We sincerely hope that mathematics education scholars in Asia and beyond will
find this book to be a great resource for their research and other academic
endeavors.

v
In memory of our friend and colleague,
Lim Chap Sam
Contents

1 School Mathematics Curricular Reform: An Asian Experience . . . 1

Catherine P. Vistro-Yu and Tin Lam Toh

Part I
2 Evolution of Singapore’s School Mathematics Curriculum . . . . . . . 21
Berinderjeet Kaur
3 New School Mathematics Curricula, PISA and PMRI in
Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Zulkardi and Ratu Ilma Indra Putri
4 A New Model of Mathematics Curriculum and Instruction
System in Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Maitree Inprasitha

Part II
5 Incorporating National Assessment into Curriculum Design
and Instruction: An Approach in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Keiko Hino and Fumi Ginshima
6 Representation of Algebra Concepts in Singapore Secondary
Mathematics Textbooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Siew Yin Ho and Tin Lam Toh
7 Current Mathematics Curriculum of South Korea and Its
Embodiment into Textbooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Hee-chan Lew
8 Research and Development of Mathematics-Grounding Activity
Modules as a Part of Curriculum in Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Fou-Lai Lin and Yu-Ping Chang

ix
x Contents

Part III
9 Issues of Mathematics Curriculum in Japan:
Changing Curriculum Policies and Developing Curriculum
Frameworks for Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Masataka Koyama
10 Implementation of School-Based Assessment (SBA) in Malaysian
Primary Mathematics Curriculum: Issues and Challenges . . . . . . . 189
Chap Sam Lim and Cheng Meng Chew
11 Prospects and Challenges in Implementing a New Mathematics
Curriculum in the Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Debbie Marie B. Verzosa and Catherine P. Vistro-Yu
12 Challenges in School Mathematics Curriculum Reform in India:
Transforming Teacher Practices Through Pedagogical
Innovations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Rakhi Banerjee and Padmanabhan Seshaiyer
Editors and Contributors

About the Editors

Catherine P. Vistro-Yu is Professor at the Mathematics Department, School of

Science and Engineering, Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines. She is Program
Coordinator of their master’s and doctoral programs in mathematics education. She
was the ICMI Philippine representative from 2008 to 2016 and was Member of
ICMI EC from 2013 to 2016. She now serves in the IPC of ICME 14.

Tin Lam Toh is Associate Professor and Deputy Head of Mathematics and
Mathematics Academic Group at the National Institute of Education, Singapore. He
was a classroom teacher and obtained a Ph.D. (Mathematics) at the National
University of Singapore. He continues to do research in both mathematics and
mathematics education, and publishes extensively in international refereed journals
in both mathematics and mathematics education.

Contributors

Rakhi Banerjee Azim Premji University, Bengaluru, India

Yu-Ping Chang National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan
Cheng Meng Chew School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia,
Penang, Malaysia
Fumi Ginshima National Institute for Educational Policy and Research, Tokyo,
Japan
Keiko Hino Utsunomiya University, Utsunomiya, Japan
Siew Yin Ho National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University,
Jurong West, Singapore

xi
xii Editors and Contributors

Maitree Inprasitha Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand

Berinderjeet Kaur National Institute of Education, Singapore, Singapore
Masataka Koyama Hiroshima University, Higashihiroshima, Japan
Hee-chan Lew Korea National University of Education, Cheongju, South Korea
Chap Sam Lim School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia,
Penang, Malaysia
Fou-Lai Lin National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan
Ratu Ilma Indra Putri Sriwijaya University, Palembang, Indonesia
Padmanabhan Seshaiyer George Mason University, Fairfax, USA
Tin Lam Toh National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University,
Jurong West, Singapore, Singapore
Debbie Marie B. Verzosa University of Southern Mindanao, Kabacan,
Philippines
Catherine P. Vistro-Yu Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, Philippines
Zulkardi Sriwijaya University, Palembang, Indonesia
Chapter 1
School Mathematics Curricular Reform:
An Asian Experience

Catherine P. Vistro-Yu and Tin Lam Toh

Abstract This chapter sets the background and rationale for the book and introduces
the reader to the different contributed chapters. It identifies the common features of
school mathematics curricula in Asian countries and presents a bird’s eye view of the
recent curricular initiatives and reforms in some of these countries. The chapter also
outlines some of the important lessons that can be learned from the Asian experiences
and offers a direction for advancing school mathematics curricula.

1.1 Background

Asian countries, particularly those in East Asia, are generally well known for
their outstanding performance in international mathematics assessments. Singapore,
Republic of Korea, Japan, and Hong Kong topped the 1995 Third International Math-
ematics and Science Study (TIMSS) for the primary school and middle school years
(Beaton et al., 1996; Mullis et al., 1997). The same four countries and Chinese-Taipei
displayed an equally superb performance in TIMSS 1999 (Mullis et al., 2000). All
five countries topped TIMSS (now Trends in International Mathematics and Sci-
ence Study) in 2003, 2007, 2011, and 2015 for Grade 8 and Grade 4 (minus Rep.
of Korea in 2003 and 2007, which did not participate in this grade level) (Mullis,
Martin, & Foy, 2008; Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Arora, 2012; Mullis, Martin, Foy, &
Hooper, 2016; Mullis, Martin, Gonzalez, & Chrostowski, 2004). In the triennial Pro-
gramme for International Student Assessment (PISA) first administered in 2000 that
tested 15-year-old students on reading, mathematics, and science literacy (with an
emphasis on one of each of reading, mathematics, and science literacy on a given
year, in that sequence), Hong Kong-China, Japan, Korea, Macao-China, Chinese-

C. P. Vistro-Yu
Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, Philippines
e-mail: [email protected]
T. L. Toh (B)
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 1

C. P. Vistro-Yu and T. L. Toh (eds.), School Mathematics Curricula,
Mathematics Education – An Asian Perspective,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6312-2_1
2 C. P. Vistro-Yu and T. L. Toh

Taipei, Shanghai-China, and Singapore all outperformed more than 40 countries and
economies that have joined PISA in 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, and 2015 (OECD,
2004, 2007, 2010, 2014, 2016; OECD/UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2003). How-
ever, not all Asian countries have reached such high achievements. In fact, several
have ranked just around the middle and a few have placed near the bottom of the
scales.

1.2 Purpose of the Book

The above phenomena have spurred numerous comparative research initiatives

between a country in Asia and another in the West or among three or more countries
representing each side of the world (e.g., 13th ICMI Study in 2002, International
Project on Mathematical Attainment and Kassel Project in 2004). Consequently,
many other research, books and journal articles featuring results of comparisons
between the East and the West or even between countries within Asia have been
written and published (see Atweh et al., 2007; Cai, Mok, Reddy, & Stacey, 2016).
While initially the primary purpose of these studies was to find the “secret” to the
excellent performance of the high-achieving Asian countries in TIMSS and PISA,
over the years the interest in cross-national research has grown (Vistro-Yu, 2013).
The expressed intent of such works has shifted from wanting to explain the contrast-
ing achievements of countries within the Asian region and between Asia and other
parts of the world to benchmarking and currently, to learning the best practices rather
than checking out the other to win the “competition.” In fact, a special issue of the
journal ZDM (Vol. 45, Issue 1) was devoted to cross-national comparisons, offering
opportunities to dig deeper into similarities and differences between nations.
One of the major objects of study in comparative research is the mathematics cur-
riculum. The recent years have seen major initiatives and developments in curriculum
not only in Asia but elsewhere in the world, and not only confined to mathematics but
for most countries include other subjects’ curricula. Some of the countries in Asia
have embarked on massive, key curricular reforms: Cambodia (see Roath, 2015),
China (see Ma & Zhao, 2015), India (see Subramaniam, 2015), Indonesia (see Hadi,
2015), Korea (see Park, 2015), Japan (see Takahashi, 2014), Malaysia (see Noor
& Crossley, 2013), Philippines (see Verzosa & Vistro-Yu, this book), Thailand (see
Inprasitha, 2015), and Vietnam (see Viet, 2009). Over the last 20 years, scholars from
these countries have documented and published studies related to these reforms.
The present book aims to contribute to the current collection of literature on
several Asian countries’ continued efforts in improving mathematics education, par-
ticularly the mathematics curriculum for their pupils. It hopes to fill in the gap in the
international literature in the area of mathematics curriculum, especially focused on
one part of Asia. The book provides a snapshot of these countries’ unique experi-
ences of mathematics curricular innovations and reforms, their endeavors, strategies,
struggles, accomplishments, and insights, many of which use first-hand, insiders’
perspectives. There had been plenty of starts and stops but, there seems to be enough
1 School Mathematics Curricular Reform: An Asian Experience 3

evidence to conclude that these reforms are taking root and have pushed many signif-
icant changes in these countries’ educational systems. This is perhaps an opportune
time to update one another on what each country has been doing with respect to their
school mathematics curricula and explore possibilities for a brighter mathematics
education for their people.

1.3 School Mathematics Curricula

Most countries in Asia often refer to school mathematics curricula using the tri-
level framework consisting of the intended, implemented, and achieved curricula.
This conceptualization of mathematics curriculum has been in use since the Sec-
ond International Mathematics Study (SIMS) (Travers & Westbury, 1989 as cited
in Wong, Zhang, & Li, 2014). It is commonly understood that the intended curricu-
lum comes in the form of the scope and sequence, the table of competencies and
expected outcomes or national standards mandated and released by the country’s
leading education agency (e.g., Department of Education in the Philippines, Min-
istry of Education, Science and Technology in Korea and Ministry of Education in
Singapore). The implemented curriculum is in the form of lessons that are taught
by the mathematics teachers in the classroom based on their interpretations of the
intended curriculum. The achieved curriculum is the set of skills and understand-
ings that students have developed as usually observed in standardized assessments.
Variations of this framework, however, may be found in places like Taiwan (Lin &
Chang, this book). Nevertheless, the framework has become a common ground for
useful discussions and comparisons in Asia.
If one were to focus and try to characterize school mathematics curricula in Asia,
one would find many similarities and differences between and among the individual
countries and sub-regions. First, in most of Southeast Asia and India, school mathe-
matics curricula were initially inherited from their colonial masters (e.g., Indonesia
from the Dutch, the Philippines from the Americans, Vietnam from the French and
India from the British) (Dauben, Lee, Raina, & Xu, 2014). Hence, there were many
similarities to the curricular contents, sequencing of topics and teaching approaches
of the colonizing countries. More concretely, the mathematics textbooks from the
colonizers were used, translated, and adapted until these countries gained their inde-
pendence and eventually were able to write and produce their own mathematics text-
books that were more suited to their students, whose culture and contexts differed
from those of the students of the colonizing countries.
Second, in most of the countries in Asia, a national curriculum is prescribed and
the management is centralized. Curricular policies and decisions are made by the
country’s leading government agency in charge of education. The implementation
of these always goes through official channels that include departments or bureaus
under the Ministry and appointed councils or institutes, official orders or memos,
and officers of the Ministry. For example, only mathematics textbooks that adhere to
the curriculum framework issued by the Ministry are duly approved and prescribed
4 C. P. Vistro-Yu and T. L. Toh

for use in the schools (Li & Ginsburg, 2006; Li, Zhang, & Ma, 2014; Tam et al.,
2014). In highly centralized countries, the individual lessons, teaching approaches,
and assessment instruments are more or less uniform for all students. Furthermore,
Mainland China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan use the “center-periphery”
model by Howson, Keitel and Kilpatrick (1981, p. 69) to develop curricula (Jennifer,
2005; Kaur, this book; Tam et al., 2014). In this model, a small group of experts work
together to develop materials in support of the curriculum and then forward these to
teachers for their classroom use. There are variations of this model across countries
(Tam et al., 2014).
Third, mathematics curricula in Asia are known to emphasize mastery of math-
ematics content as expressed in official documents and curriculum frameworks of
these countries. But, the ways to achieve this are strikingly diverse. In terms of cur-
riculum sequence and design, countries such as China, Vietnam, and Philippines
have emphasized on the content depth in developing students’ content mastery of
particular strands of mathematics at the elementary and secondary level. Prior to
recent reforms, these countries would emphasize the importance of getting the stu-
dents to specialize in algebra and geometry at a young age, before they moved to
sophisticated mathematics like calculus. On the other hand, other countries like Sin-
gapore and Malaysia, following the British curriculum system, tend to capitalize
on Bruner’s (1960) spiral approach for issues related to the mathematics curricu-
lum. The emphasis of these latter countries is to expose students to a broad-based
curriculum and introduce the depth of each strand at the age-appropriate level. The
emphasis on mastery can also be seen in the ways of teaching. In China, the domi-
nant approach is through drill, practice and repetition with variation (Li, 2006). The
top performing Asian countries in TIMSS and PISA project this emphasis through
“exemplary” mathematics lessons, as evidenced by the publication of a whole issue
of ZDM (Volume 41, Issue 3) entitled Exemplary Mathematics Instruction and Its
Development in East Asia.
Fourth, mathematics curricula in Asia are heavily reflected in the textbooks. In
fact, in many of these countries, the textbook is often seen as the “intended curricu-
lum.” They are a dominant force in Asian mathematics education as textbooks have
been acknowledged to be effective in eliciting students’ learning of the intended
outcomes (Oates, 2014). Textbooks mediate between the intended curriculum and
the implemented curriculum. Being the most tangible extension of the official cur-
riculum, students and their parents consider them too important to ignore. It is the
same with mathematics teachers who plan their lessons principally by referring to the
textbooks mandated by their governments. A study of textbooks enables one to have
a deeper understanding of how teachers teach and how students learn the subject
in school. For example, Ding and Li (2014) showed how a specific mathematical
concept is presented in the mathematics textbooks of a particular country. Textbooks
have also become the popular basis of comparison between countries’ mathemat-
ics curricula. A common trend in these comparative studies involves studying how
the countries present a particular mathematical concept through the textbooks from
several countries, possibly from Asia and the West (e.g., Fan & Zhu, 2007; Hong &
1 School Mathematics Curricular Reform: An Asian Experience 5

Choi, 2014; Yeap, Ferrucci, & Carter, 2006)), in order to understand the differences
in the curriculum across cultures.
Last but not least, mathematics curricula in Asia are tied to the countries’ cultural
heritage. The exemplary performance of countries belonging to the Confucian Her-
itage Cultures (CHC) in TIMSS and PISA brought this to fore citing in particular,
the stark differences between the CHC and countries in the West. The discussions
have focused on the important role that a country’s culture plays in shaping mathe-
matics curricula, instruction, and mathematics education as a whole. The Discussion
Document for the 13th ICMI Study Conference held in 2002 concretized this point
(Leung, Graf, & Lopez-Real, 2006). With the theme, Mathematics Education in
Different Cultural Traditions—A Comparative Study of East Asia and the West, the
study sought to enlighten comparisons and discussions about mathematics educa-
tion using the lens of culture. As observed, the mathematics curriculum of some East
Asian countries, specifically those that follow the CHC have been typically described
as content oriented, examination driven, and highly focused on the memorization of
mathematical facts (Leung, Graf, & Lopez-Real, 2006, p. 7).
The mathematics curriculum remains as the core of a country’s mathematics edu-
cation activities (Wu, Park, & Leung, 2006). Hence, mathematics education reforms
inevitably include if not revolve around the curriculum. Given the broad understand-
ing of what a curriculum is, any attempt to improve mathematics education pre-
dictably gives rise to innovations in the mathematics curriculum. More importantly,
“curriculum reform is often seen as holding great promise for the improvement of
mathematics teaching and learning” (Cai, 2015, p. 89). Hence, it is imperative for
countries to pay careful attention to all elements comprising the curriculum.

1.4 Glimpses of Mathematics Curricular Reforms in Asia

Cai (2015) implicitly defines a reform curriculum as one that differs in conceptu-
alization and features from the existing curriculum. Just like in several parts of the
world, many countries in Asia have in the last two decades instituted reforms in
their school mathematics curricula, mostly as part of national educational reform
initiatives. It is easy to think that because Asian countries are steeped in centuries-
old traditions, authentic curricular reforms would be impossible to conceive and
implement. However, there is substantial evidence that genuine reforms in school
mathematics curricula are actually currently well-placed and have produced pos-
itive results (Chiu & Whitebread, 2011; Dauben, Lee, Raina, & Xu, 2014; Hadi,
2015; Kaur et al., 2015; Lee, 2014; Pang, 2014; Park, 2015; Subramaniam, 2015;
Takahashi, 2014). These are reforms that are not just written on documents but have
actually pushed all stakeholders to take action in order to implement them. These
reforms are all occurring quite simultaneously at different levels and in a variety of
forms and complexities.
6 C. P. Vistro-Yu and T. L. Toh

1.4.1 On Content

Changes to mathematics curricula are often construed as revisions to the content

(Pang, 2014). One tendency when reforming curriculum is to add “topics” to the
syllabus, whether these are higher-level sophisticated mathematical content (vertical
movement) or expansions within the current contents by the introduction of appli-
cations or linkages to other fields of study (horizontal movement). The new K-12
mathematics curriculum of the Philippines exemplifies this reform move. Nationally,
two years have been added to the pre-university education (http://www.deped.gov.
ph accessed July 26, 2018). The previously called High School which was compul-
sory is now called Junior High School. The additional two years comprise Senior
High School education. Statistics now occupies more hours and includes hypothe-
sis testing, which was normally taught at the college level prior to this reform, and
Introductory Calculus is now a requirement for students in the STEM track.
The Philippines’ case is an isolated one. In fact, the trend in this region has been
one or a combination of the following: reduce the amount of content to be covered,
reorganize the present syllabus or integrate related topics in order to de-emphasize
some while propping up the teaching of others. Several countries have observed for
many years that the mathematics curriculum (or national curriculum, in general)
has been too congested. With the rising concern for how their students have been
overwhelmed by the amount of material to be learned and have expressed much
dislike and hatred of mathematics, it was important for these countries to work on
content reduction or integration in the curriculum. Japan made this controversial
decision in the 1998 curriculum revision cycle when it reduced the content of all
subjects by 30%, including mathematics (Akiyama, Hirano, & Sakai, 1999; Koyama,
this book; Wu & Zhang, 2006). Then, in the 2008 cycle, Japan added some of what
was removed in the 1998 curriculum, including Statistics but with added emphasis
on students’ mathematical activities (Koyama, this book).
Back in the mid-1990s, Vietnam also recognized that its school curriculum was
overloaded and subsequently worked to decongest the lower secondary curriculum
by integrating some of the school subjects and introducing optional subjects (Viet,
2009). In its curriculum reform in 2000, Vietnam sought “to lighten theoretical input
by removing contents and techniques considered to be too complex and replace
them with activities and problem solving” (Bessot & Comiti, 2006, p. 169). As for the
Primary Mathematics Curriculum, Vietnam’s focus was on developing pupils’ “basic
applicable knowledge and skills, necessary to their lives in the community and future”
(Do, 2000, p. 5) as well as thinking skills, study techniques and problem-solving
abilities. China was no different. Wu and Zhang (2006) noted that at least in Shanghai,
there was a one-third reduction in content. Hong Kong, a Special Administrative
Region of China, has recognized the over-emphasis on examinations and relatively
heavy content load of its mathematics curriculum. The first step in the beginning of
this millennium was a content reduction in both primary and secondary mathematics
curriculum by about 11–15% (Lam, 2008). South Korea reduced the amount of
content in their 2011 curriculum effectively by as much as 20% compared to the
1 School Mathematics Curricular Reform: An Asian Experience 7

previous curriculum (Pang, 2014). Not only did South Korea reduce content, it also
used the strategy of reorganizing the topics taught over several grade levels. The
reasons for the change specifically included the need to free up time for teachers to
enhance students’ mathematical thinking, communication skills, and creativity.

1.4.2 On Learners’ Affective Dimension and the Learning

Process

A striking reform in the mathematics curricula of countries in Asia as seen in official

documents and published papers is the acknowledgment and consideration for the
affective dimension of the learners—their contexts, interests, attitudes, and beliefs.
Over the recent years, there have been increased efforts to differentiate mathematics
curricula in order to develop students’ generic skills and interests and adopt an
approach that would cater to individual differences in learning styles, interests, and
abilities. The latest mathematics curriculum in 2017 of Hong Kong provides the
structure in supporting flexibility in content delivery to focus on the needs of the
different individuals. According to the document Curriculum Development Council
of Hong Kong (2017),
the school curriculum aims to help students cultivate positive values, attitudes and commit-
ment to lifelong learning. It involves an open and flexible curriculum framework comprising
three interconnected components: Key Learning Areas (KLAs), generic skills, and values
and attitudes…It is flexible in allowing for different ways of approaching the content and the
use of diverse learning strategies and styles in order to suit the needs of individual learners.
(p. 3)

It is the same with other countries. The official documents of Singapore’s Ministry
of Education as detailed by Kaur (this book) have declared an increase in emphasis
on the learning experiences of the child in order to learn mathematics. Its curricu-
lum was designed to cater to every child’s needs, providing them opportunities to
study mathematics at the highest level. In Thailand, the distinguishing features of
the new curriculum that Inprasitha (this book) described as more process-oriented
than product-oriented not only emphasized content but also “learning processes and
desirable characteristics” (p. 58). Indonesia’s decision to adopt Realistic Mathe-
matics Education and localize it highlights the same considerations of the learner
and the learning process. Zulkardi (this book) cites five characteristics of the PMRI
(Indonesian version of RME) that include encouraging the use of students’ knowl-
edge constructions or strategies in the classroom.
In the study by Zhang (2008), a mathematics curriculum review was carried out in
China to address three aspects of mathematics education reform: (1) the recognition
of mathematics and school mathematics, (2) the method of teaching and learning
mathematics based on the modern mathematics, and (3) methods of assessment. The
new syllabus document now consists of not only the content of mathematics to be
taught by the teachers and learnt by the students, but also includes the essential
8 C. P. Vistro-Yu and T. L. Toh

learning processes and teaching recommendations. This resonates with the seminal
work by Tyler (1949) that in any curriculum, the process of learning is at least as
important as the product. As a specific illustration, students are expected to experience
the process of mathematical modeling—an application of the process of mathematical
problem solving (Wang, Liu, Du, & Liu, 2017). The new curriculum also takes into
account the mathematics that is required for citizens in the modern world.
Problem solving and creativity. Problem solving is a core element of the mathemat-
ics curriculum in Asia and in many countries around the world. However, specifically
in Asia, in acknowledging the centrality of the role of mathematical problem solv-
ing in the mathematics curriculum, the emphasis of the curriculum has moved to
include developing creativity among students as one of its major goals. The general
stance that these countries have taken is that mathematical content is still an essential
component for problem solving that should not be sacrificed. This is aligned with
Schoenfeld’s (1985) identification of “resources” as one of the four important dimen-
sions for mathematical problem solving. The rigors of the mathematical content are
still of paramount importance. Problem solving helps to align and integrate all the
new initiatives in mathematics education into one organic whole, putting the entire
mathematics education in the right perspective. The implications for the learner are
significant. Allowing for students’ creative abilities to emerge in a mathematical
problem-solving environment makes for a more humanistic mathematics instead of
the cold, rigid subject that students of the past have been taught. Another significant
step that Asian countries have taken is the inclusion of teaching metacognitive skills
in the curriculum. For example, ever since problem solving has become the heart
of its mathematics curriculum, Singapore has recognized five dimensions of prob-
lem solving: Concepts, Skills, Processes, Attitude, and Metacognition. Creativity,
creative thinking, and metacognition were once unheard of in Asia as these coun-
tries have historically frowned upon dissent and divergence. Likewise, metacognitive
skills are often relegated as non-essential, as they are mistakenly considered as skills
that one picks up outside of the classroom and not to be actively taught in a mathe-
matics class.

1.4.3 Other Emerging Trends

There have been other innovations and reform efforts worth mentioning here that
have begun to take shape. These include the expansion of mathematics teachers’
roles in curriculum implementation, changing impact of assessment on curriculum
and instruction and the search for other directions for implementing change.
Mathematics teachers and curriculum implementation. A new trend is emerging
with respect to the changing role of mathematics teachers in curriculum development
in places such as Indonesia and Taiwan. If in the past, mathematics teachers were
merely considered as the final executors of the curriculum handed them in the form of
ready-made lessons, textbooks, and other curriculum materials and were then taught
1 School Mathematics Curricular Reform: An Asian Experience 9

how to teach using these materials, there is now a shift in perspective of mathe-
matics teachers’ roles in curriculum implementation. Some countries in Asia have
started to recognize more seriously the teachers’ important role as co-creators and
co-developers of curriculum materials. There is a growing recognition and accep-
tance of the idea that teachers’ ownership of curriculum materials is as important as
their learning of the different approaches to teaching the curriculum.
Mathematics teachers are always caught in between. On the one hand, they are the
end users of the curriculum passed on to them by the Ministry and on another, they
are expected to “design” their own curriculum in the form of what they finally teach
in the classroom. Inevitably, a gap emerges. What is given to them for use changes
when it is actually taught in the classroom. One reason for this is the drastic shift of
orientation from how they themselves learned mathematics as students to how they
are expected to teach mathematics. Chiu and Whitebread (2011) documented how
some Taiwanese mathematics teachers struggled to implement the newly mandated
curriculum, which followed a constructivist’s philosophy. In order to cope, these
teachers used strategies that allowed them to implement only some of the curriculum
expectations, rather than none at all. Engaging mathematics teachers to develop parts
of the new curriculum, whether in the form of textbooks or other learning materials
and devices that they could use for their own classes is more effective and sustainable.
There is much to learn from the experiences of Indonesia and Taiwan in involving
their teachers in developing materials for the reform curricula (Sembiring, Hadi, &
Dolk, 2008; Zulkardi, this book; Lin & Chang, this book).
Impact of assessment. Most educators would not deny that assessment in mathemat-
ics is among a teacher’s most important educational tool. When properly developed
and interpreted, assessments are able to help teachers understand their students’
learning better (for example, Junpeng, 2012). However, it is a recognized fact that
the mathematics curricula of many Asian countries are examination driven. In these
countries, high stakes examinations are used to determine the educational future of
their pupils, for example, their admission to prestigious universities, employment
in top positions in the government service, and so on. As a result, teachers often
teach the coverage of the tests rather than the actual curriculum. There are calls by
researchers to align learning targets of the curriculum to assessment in the process
of education reform (e.g., Leung, Leung, & Zuo, 2014). The conceptualization of
the alignment is shown by the various Asian countries’ taking into consideration
three modes of relations between assessment and learning: assessment for learning,
assessment of learning, and assessment as learning. Recent initiatives have begun
to lessen the impact of high stakes assessments by strengthening and increasing the
value of assessments in schools. The emphasis is no longer on summative assess-
ments alone but more so, on formative assessments. A holistic assessment is also
currently emerging in Asian countries, e.g., the use of alternative assessment such
as performance assessment and journal writing. Various alternative assessment tools
are developed by researchers in different countries (e.g., Lim, Wun, & Idris, 2010).
What is hoped is that assessment will be both student- and teacher-friendly and truly
useful in shaping curriculum and instruction. We believe that if there is a second vol-
ume to this book on Asian mathematics curriculum to be published sometime in the
10 C. P. Vistro-Yu and T. L. Toh

future, there will be more chapters contributed by various Asian countries discussing
their conceptions of assessment, and their efforts to align assessment to curriculum
in order to enhance better student learning.
Direction of reforms. In most countries in Asia, revisions to the mathematics curric-
ula at the national or school level are traditionally implemented following the central-
ized, top-down approach (Wong, Zhang, & Li, 2014). Jennifer (2005) described the
education system in Hong Kong as highly centralized, and “decision-making mostly
follows a top-down, centre-periphery approach” (p. 164). The top-down approach to
reforming the whole or parts of an educational system of a country has been criticized
for the high degree of control that governments exercise over the whole structure,
limiting levels of involvement and participation in decision-making by those below
the central agency—district supervisors, school and subject coordinators, classroom
teachers and other major players—or hampering the inclusion of creative ideas on
how to implement the reforms (Carless, 1997; Fink, 2003; Jennifer, 2005). Although
efficient in the short term, the top-down approach has disenfranchised many of the
key players. At first, those below will cooperate with incentives being dangled in
front of them. But, eventually they lose interest or will continue doing their share
of work in “lifeless or uninspired ways” (Schmidt & Prawat, 1999, p. 85). An alter-
nate direction for reform is the bottom-up approach. If the top-down approach is
associated with control by government or school leaders, the bottom-up approach is
associated with greater participation by those below them (Schmidt & Prawat, 1999).
There is an assumed commitment on the part of the people below. The bottom-up
approach is characterized by those below initiating change, working and cooperating
with others and setting directions for management to lay down policies.
A mix of the two aforementioned directions of mathematics curricular reforms
offers perhaps, the best option for initiating and implementing changes (Schmidt &
Prawat, 1999). In such a strategy, mandates and official directives for change come
from the top government agency while teachers and school-based subject coordi-
nators work with each other to develop materials that would support the mandated
curricular aims. Hargreaves and Ainscow (2015) noted that the top-down approach
is inappropriate for innovating and encouraging diverse ideas while the bottom-up
strategy generally fails to effect large-scale improvements. They argue for change
that begins in the middle-school districts that are more able to provide support
for classroom teachers and, in turn are able to influence policy change in the top
level. Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand seem to be making progress in this area of
following a more participatory approach to curricular reform.

1.5 Potential Lessons to be Learned

The present book hopes to enrich the existing literature that document some Asian
countries’ initiatives and efforts to reform school mathematics curricula. Eleven chap-
ters representing nine countries in the East and South Asia provide insights on their
experiences in innovating or reforming their mathematics curricula. It is a treasure
1 School Mathematics Curricular Reform: An Asian Experience 11

trove of ideas and experiences from which the international mathematics education
community could potentially learn. These are narratives of individual countries that
are worth reading.

1.5.1 Chapter Contributions

The first three chapters of the book contain papers that present and discuss the
intended school mathematics curriculum of three countries—Singapore, Indonesia,
and Thailand. These chapters also give some perspective of how the intended cur-
riculum is developed and offer some ideas on how to make the reform process better.
These chapters represent different origins and trajectories of reform. Chapter 2 by
Berinderjeet Kaur traces the evolution of the mathematics curriculum of Singapore,
highlighting the changed emphases in the curriculum statements of the Ministry of
Education (MOE) and tied to the development and reform of the national curriculum.
Chapter 3 by Zulkardi impresses upon the reader the growing impact of Indonesia’s
version of Realistic Mathematics Education, the PMRI, and shows how persistent
efforts could make huge differences for their teachers as they become more immersed
in curriculum development. Chapter 4 by Maitree Inprasitha presents the most impor-
tant changes in Thailand’s mathematics curriculum and raises the question of whether
curriculum development must follow an R&D model involving teachers.
The next four chapters describe some countries’ unique experiences in developing
and redesigning their mathematics curricula. They present some curriculum materi-
als used in their countries and talk about how these are developed and refined. These
papers showcase four countries’ unique approaches to developing school mathemat-
ics curricula at the implemented curriculum level—Japan, Singapore, South Korea,
and Taiwan. Chapter 5 by Keiko Hino and Fumi Ginshima discusses how national
assessment results in Japan are used as input for designing their country’s math-
ematics curriculum. Chapter 6 by Siew Yin Ho and Tin Lam Toh illustrates how
algebra concepts are presented and taught in Singapore’s secondary mathematics text-
books. Chapter 7 by Hee-chan Lew narrates how South Korea’s curricular reforms are
reflected in their textbooks. Chapter 8 by Fou-Lai Lin and Yu-Ping Chang describes
the Just Do Math Project in Taiwan, a module development activity which included
teachers’ development and training to teach the materials.
The last four chapters ground the readers in the realities of curricular reforms.
These chapters focus on problems and issues related to mathematics curriculum, cur-
riculum policies, and including future directions for school mathematics curricula.
Problematic aspects of curriculum development and implementation in Asian coun-
tries are discussed and analyzed in the hope of contributing to the shaping of effective
policies for implementation, assessment, and monitoring of curricula. Chapter 9 by
Masataka Koyama highlights the different issues in Japan, which he believes could
be addressed through curriculum policy and the framework documents. Chapter 10
by Chap Sam Lim, Cheng Meng Chew and Rajagopal Thilakavathy studies the
issues and challenges of implementing school-based assessment in support of
12 C. P. Vistro-Yu and T. L. Toh

curricular reforms in Malaysia. Chapter 11 by Debbie Marie B. Verzosa and Cather-

ine P. Vistro-Yu analyzes the problems and difficulties of implementing the revamped
school mathematics curriculum as part of the newly developed K-12 curriculum in
the Philippines and notes the need for greater support and attention by Government.
Last but not least, Chapter 12 by Rakhi Banerjee and Padmanabhan Seshaiyer dis-
cusses the continuing issues and challenges in teacher preparation and professional
development that India faces in implementing innovations and reforms in the school
mathematics curriculum.

1.5.2 “So What?”: More Take-Aways

If we were to step back, survey all these stories of curriculum development and
reform and look at the wider scheme of actions, other realities stand out and become
lessons on their own that can be shared with the rest of the world.
Not resting on their laurels. We began this chapter by giving the impetus for much
of the last two decades worth of international comparative studies, with the high-
performing countries in Asia at the very center of all the discussions. Have these
countries kept comfortable with what they have achieved? Obviously not. These
countries remain committed to keep on doing better, changing what needs to be
revised and removing what has not worked. They seem to be in a constant flux,
always moving to search for a “better formula” and with good intention, which is for
the development and betterment of their students.
Self-criticism as initiator for change. As for the lower-performing countries, know-
ing fully well how much behind they are compared to their neighbors, their weapon
is to be their own critic. They complain and blame their own policies, people, and
processes for their own failures. But, do they stop there? Obviously not. Wanting
to catch up, they try their hardest to achieve better. Never mind that they fall short
repeatedly but they continue plodding on, searching for the “right formula.”
Openness to change. The days of cautiousness in this part of the world are gradually
fading. We now see a more open part of Asia and a more willing collaborator and
team player in curriculum innovation. There have been many exchanges of ideas
through scholarly works, collaborative projects, and regional conferences. While
tensions continue to exist, both within and between nations, we also see the abilities
of these countries to go beyond the dictates of old traditions and culture and become
much better.

1.6 Looking Forward

Like most parts of the world, Asia has caught on the trend of reforming mathematics
curricula. But, mathematics curricular reforms are never a walk in the park. The
1 School Mathematics Curricular Reform: An Asian Experience 13

reality is that reforming a mathematics curriculum requires changes in all aspects of

mathematics education—vision, content, materials, teaching practices, and assess-
ment methods. Hopefully, the chapters in this book are able to offer fresh ideas for
other countries to pursue new curricular directions.
What then, is the future with respect to school mathematics curricula? Ever since
the publication of Charles (2005), curriculum and policy makers have been chal-
lenged to re-think the design and purpose of school mathematics curriculum by
examining the “Big Idea” of Mathematics. According to Charles (2005),
A Big Idea is a statement of an idea that is central to the learning of mathematics, one that
links numerous mathematical understandings into a coherent whole. (p. 10)

There has not been any definition of a “Big Idea” agreed by educators around the
world; neither is there any universal agreement on the number of “big ideas” to be
included for mathematics. The closest to this is the idea of a unifying concept for
mathematics. In the United States, the function concept was identified as the “best
single concept for unifying the curriculum” (NCTM, 1970, p. 205). This is mainly
due to the pervading presence of functions in mathematics and science as well as its
usefulness for students.
The basic principle of a “Big Idea” is about the overarching idea across the various
topics in the mathematics curriculum (Tay, 2019; Toh, Kaur & Tay, 2019). Funda-
mentally, it is about the connectedness of all the mathematical concepts within the
school mathematics curriculum. An emphasis on a “Big Idea” guides the teacher
to make thinking visible and the various mathematical topics coherent for students
(Toh, Kaur & Tay, 2019). The notion of a “Big Idea” is without doubt a future of
school mathematics curriculum in Asia.

References

Akiyama, J., Hirano, Y., & Sakai, T. (1999). Nonstandard ways of teaching standard mathematics.
In E. B. Ogena & E. F. Golla (Eds.), 8th Southeast Asian Conference on Mathematics Education
Technical Papers (pp. 7–33). Manila: SEAMS & MATHTED.
Atweh, B., Barton, A. C., Borba, M. C., Gough, N., Keitel, C., Vistro-Yu, C., et al. (Eds.).
(2007). Internationalisation and globalization in mathematics and science education. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Beaton, A. E., Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., Kelly, D. L., & Smith, T. A. (1996).
Mathematics achievement in the middle school years: IEA’s Third International Mathematics
and Science Study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill, MA: Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation, and
Educational Policy, Boston College.
Bessot, A., & Comiti, C. (2006). Some comparative studies between French and Vietnamese cur-
ricula. In F. K. S. Leung, K.-D. Graf, & F. Lopez-Real (Eds.), Mathematics education in differ-
ent cultural traditions—A comparative study of East Asia and the West, The 13th ICMI study
(pp. 159–179). NY: Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The Process of Education. London, England: Harvard University Press.
Cai, J. (2015). Curriculum reform and mathematics learning: Evidence from two longitudinal stud-
ies. In S. J. Cho (Ed.), Selected regular lectures from the 12th International Congress on Math-
ematical Education (pp. 71–92). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17187-6_
5.
14 C. P. Vistro-Yu and T. L. Toh

Cai, J., Mok, I. A. C., Reddy, V., & Stacey, K. (2016). International comparative studies in mathe-
matics, lessons for improving students’ learning. Switzerland: Springer.
Carless, D. R. (1997). Managing systemic curriculum change: A critical analysis of Hong Kong’s
target-oriented curriculum initiative. International Review of Education, 43(4), 349–366.
Charles, R. I. (2005). Big ideas and understandings as the foundation for elementary and middle
school mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Education Leadership, 7(3), 9–24.
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.
Curriculum Development Council of Hong Kong. (2017). Report on the new academic structure
mid-term review and beyond: Continual renewal from strength to strength. Retrieved on June 10,
2018, http://334.edb.hkedcity.net/doc/eng/MTR_Report_e.pdf.
Dauben, J. W., Lee, P. Y., Raina, D., & Xu, Y. (2014). Mathematics education in modern Asia. In A.
Karp & G. Schubring (Eds.), Handbook on the history of mathematics education (pp. 361–390).
New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
Ding, M., & Li, X. (2014). Transition from concrete to abstract representations: The distributive
property in a Chinese textbook series. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 87, 103–121.
Do, D. (2000). Mathematics teaching and learning in Vietnam. http://www.cimt.org.uk/journal/
ddvietmt.pdf. Accessed July 18, 2018.
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.
Fink, D. (2003). The law of unintended consequences: The real cost of top-down reform. Journal
of Educational Change, 4, 105–128.
Hadi, S. (2015). The mathematics education reform movement in Indonesia. In S. J. Cho (Ed.),
Selected regular lectures from the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education,
pp. 253–267. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17187-6_5.
Hargreaves, A., & Ainscow, M. (2015). The top and bottom of leadership and change. The Phi Delta
Kappan, 97(3), 42–48.
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, 241–263.
Howson, G., Keitel, C., & Kilpatrick, J. (1981). Curriculum development in mathematics. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
http://www.deped.gov.ph. Accessed July 26, 2018.
Inprasitha, M. (2015). Transforming education through Lesson Study: Thailand’s decade-long jour-
ney. In S. J. Cho (Ed.), Selected regular lectures from the 12th International Congress on Mathe-
matical Education (pp. 343–354). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17187-6_
5.
Jennifer, L. Y. C. (2005). Curriculum reform. In M. Bray & R. Koo (Eds.), Education and society
in Hong Kong and Macao. CERC Studies in Comparative Education (Vol. 7, pp. 161–174).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Junpeng, P. (2012). The development of classroom assessment system in mathematics for basic
education of Thailand. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 1965–1972.
Kaur, B., et al. (2015). Mathematics education in Singapore. In S. J. Cho (Ed.), The Proceed-
ings of the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Intellectual and Attitudinal
Challenges (pp. 311–316). Switzerland: Springer.
Lam, L. (2008). Mathematics education reform in Hong Kong. Retrieved on June 10, 2018. http://
www.math.unipa.it/~grim/SiLam.PDF.
Lee, N. H. (2014). The Singapore mathematics curriculum development—A mixed model approach.
In Y. Li & G. Lappan (Eds.). (2014). Mathematics curriculum in school education (pp. 279–303).
Dordrecht: Springer.
1 School Mathematics Curricular Reform: An Asian Experience 15

Leung, F. K. S., Graf, K.-D., & Lopez-Real, F. J. (2006). Mathematics education in different cultural
traditions—A comparative study of East Asia and the West, The 13th ICMI study. NY: Springer
Science+Business Media Inc.
Leung, F. K. S., Leung, K. C., & Zuo, H. (2014). A study of the alignment of learning targets and
assessment to generic skills in the new senior secondary mathematics curriculum in Hong Kong.
Studies in Educational Evaluation, 43, 115–132.
Li, S. (2006). Practice makes perfect: A key belief in China. In F. K. S. Leung, K.-D. Graf, & F.
Lopez-Real (Eds.), Mathematics education in different cultural traditions—A comparative study
of East Asia and the West, The 13th ICMI study (pp. 129–138). NY: Springer Science+Business
Media, Inc.
Li, Y., Zhang, J., & Ma, T. (2014). School mathematics textbook design and development practices in
China. In Y. Li & G. Lappan (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum in school education (pp. 305–326).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Li, Y., & Ginsburg, M. B. (2006). Classification and framing of mathematical knowledge in Hong
Kong, Mainland China, Singapore, and the United States. In F. K. S. Leung, K-D. Graf, & F.
Lopez-Real (Eds.), Mathematics education in different cultural traditions—A comparative study
of East Asia and the West, The 13th ICMI study ((pp. 195–211). NY: Springer Science+Business
Media, Inc.
Lim, H. L., Wun, T. Y., & Idris, N. (2010). Superitem test: An alternative assessment tool to assess
students’ algebraic solving ability. International Journal of Mathematics Teaching and Learning,
5, 1–15.
Ma, Y., & Zhao, D. (2015). Features of exemplary lessons under the curriculum reform in China:
A case study on thirteen elementary mathematics lessons. In S. J. Cho (Ed.), Selected regular
lectures from the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 507–525). Cham:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17187-6_5.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Beaton, A. E., Gonzalez, E. J., Kelly, D. L., & Smith, T. A. (1997).
Mathematics achievement in the primary school years: IEA’s Third International Mathematics
and Science Study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill, MA: Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation, and
Educational Policy, Boston College.
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,
MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in
mathematics. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
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, Boston College.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 interna-
tional mathematics report: Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science
Study at the fourth and eighth grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study
Center, Boston College.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., Gregory, K. D., Garden, R. A., O’Connor, K. M., …
Smith, T. A. (2000). TIMSS 1999 international mathematics report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat
of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the eighth grade. Chestnut Hill,
MA: International Study Center, Boston College.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1970). A history of mathematics education in the
United States and Canada. Washington, D.C.: NCTM.
Noor, M. A. M., & Crossley, M. (2013). Educational innovation and the knowledge society: devel-
opment and issues of the clusters of excellence initiative in Malaysia. Asia Pacific Journal of
Education, 33(2), 156–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2013.780675.
Oates, T. (2014). Why textbooks count: A policy paper. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Local
Examinations Syndicate.
16 C. P. Vistro-Yu and T. L. Toh

OECD. (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD Pub-
lishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264006416-en.
OECD. (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world: Volume 1: Analysis. Paris:
OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264040014-en.
OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: Executive summary. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/
10.1787/9789264091450-en.
OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do (Volume I, Revised edition,
February 2014): Student performance in mathematics, reading and science. Paris: OECD Pub-
lishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264208780-en.
OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in education. Paris: OECD
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en.
OECD/UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2003). Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow: Further
results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264102873-en.
Pang, J. S. (2014). Changes to the Korean mathematics curriculum: Expectations and challenges. In
Y. Li & G. Lappan (Eds.). (2014). Mathematics curriculum in school education (pp. 260–276).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Park, S.-H. (2015). National presentation of Korea. In S. J. Cho (Ed.), The Proceedings of the 12th
International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 305–310). Cham: Springer.
Roath, C. (2015). Mathematics education in Cambodia from 1980 to 2012: Challenges and per-
spectives 2025. In S. J. Cho (Ed.), Selected regular lectures from the 12th International Congress
on Mathematical Education (pp. 667–676). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
17187-6_5.
Schmidt, W. H., & Prawat, R. S. (1999). What does the Third International Mathematics and Science
Study tell us about where to draw the line in the top-down versus bottom-up debate? Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 85–91.
Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press.
Sembiring, R. K., Hadi, S., & Dolk, M. (2008). Reforming mathematics learning in Indonesian
classrooms through RME. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40, 927–939. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11858-008-0125-9.
Subramaniam, K. (2015). National presentation of India. In S. J. Cho (Ed.), The Proceedings of the
12th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 325–330). Cham: Springer.
Takahashi, A. (2014). Supporting the effective implementation of a new mathematics curriculum:
A case study of School-Based Lesson Study at a Japanese public elementary school. In Y. Li & G.
Lappan (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum in school education (pp. 417–441). Dordrecht: Springer.
Tam, H. P., Wong, N.-Y., Lam, C.-C., Ma, Y., Lu, L., & Lu, Y.-J. (2014). Decision making in the
mathematics curricula among the Chinese Mainland, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. In Y. Li & G.
Lappan (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum in school education (pp. 93–117). Dordrecht: Springer.
Tay, E. G. (2019). Teaching mathematics: A modest call to consider Big Ideas. In T. L. Toh & B.
W. J. Yeo (Eds.), Big ideas in mathematics. Singapore: World Scientific.
Toh, T. L., Kaur, B., & Tay, E. G. (2019). Reviewing the past, striving in the present and mov-
ing towards a future-ready mathematics education. In T. L. Toh, B. Kaur & E. G. Tay (Eds.),
Mathematics Education in Singapore. Singapore: Springer Nature.
Travers, K. J., & Westbury, I. (Eds.). (1989). The IEA study of mathematics I: Analysis of mathematics
curricula. Oxford: Pergamon.
Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Viet, L. C. L. (2009). Education reform in lower secondary education in Vietnam. In Y. Hirosato &
Y. Kitamura (Eds.), The political economy of educational reforms and capacity development in
Southeast Asia (pp. 217–236). NY: Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Vistro-Yu, C. P. (2013). Cross-national studies on the teaching and learning of mathematics: Where
do we go from here? ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(145–151), 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11858-013-0488-4. (Accepted: 24 January 2013/Published online: 12 February.
1 School Mathematics Curricular Reform: An Asian Experience 17

Wang, L., Liu, Q., Du, X., & Liu, J. (2017). Chinese mathematics curriculum reform in the 21st
century: A review. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(8).
https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.01005a.
Wong, N.-Y., Zhang, Q., & Li, X. (2014). (Mathematics) curriculum, teaching and learning. In Y.
Li & G. Lappan (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum in school education (pp. 607–620). Dordrecht:
Springer.
Wu, M., Park, K., & Leung, F. K. S. (2006). Curriculum, introduction. In F. K. S. Leung, K-D.
Graf, & F. Lopez-Real (Eds.), Mathematics education in different cultural traditions—A com-
parative study of East Asia and the West, The 13th ICMI study (pp. 153–157). NY: Springer
Science+Business Media, Inc.
Wu, M., & Zhang, D. (2006). An overview of the mathematics curricula in the West and East,
discussions on the findings of the Chongqing Paper. In F. K. S. Leung, K-D. Graf, & F. Lopez-
Real (Eds.), Mathematics education in different cultural traditions—A comparative study of East
Asia and the West, The 13th ICMI study (pp. 181–193). NY: Springer Science+Business Media,
Inc.
Yeap, B., Ferrucci, B. J., & Carter, J. A. (2006). A comparative study of arithmetic problems in
Singaporean and American textbooks. In F. K. S. Leung, K.-D. Graf, & F. Lopez-Real (Eds.),
Mathematics education in different cultural traditions—A comparative study of East Asia and
the West, The 13th ICMI study (pp. 213–225). NY: Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
Zhang, D. (2008). 中国数学在改革与反思中前进 [Chinese mathematics education is developing
in the midst of reform and reflection]. Mathematics Bulletin, 11, 22–26.

Catherine P. Vistro-Yu is Professor at the Mathematics Department, School of Science and Engi-
neering, Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines. She is Program Coordinator of their master’s
and doctoral programs in Mathematics Education. She was the ICMI Philippine representative
from 2008 to 2016 and was a member of the ICMI EC from 2013-2016. She now serves in the
IPC of ICME 14.

Tin Lam Toh is an Associate Professor and the Deputy Head of Mathematics & Mathematics
Academic Group at the Singapore National Institute of Education. He was a classroom teacher
and obtained a PhD (Mathematics) at the National University of Singapore. He continues to do
research in both Mathematics and Mathematics Education, and publishes extensively in interna-
tional refereed journals in both Mathematics and Mathematics Education.
 Part I

Part I of the book contains papers that present and discuss the intended school
mathematics curriculum of three countries—Singapore, Indonesia, and Thailand.
These chapters also give some perspectives of how the intended curriculum is
developed and offer some ideas on how to make the process better.
Chapter 2
Evolution of Singapore’s School
Mathematics Curriculum

Berinderjeet Kaur

Abstract The evolution of Singapore’s school mathematics curriculum is in tandem

with developments in the education system of Singapore. In the last six decades,
economic policies of the government that are necessary for the survival of Singapore
in a fast changing world have shaped the aims of the school mathematics curriculum.
The present-day curriculum can best be described as one that caters for the needs
of every child in school. It is based on a coherent framework that has mathematical
problem solving as its primary focus. The curriculum may be claimed to be one of the
four factors that contributes towards Singapore’s performance in benchmark studies
such as TIMSS and PISA.

2.1 Introduction

Singapore’s education system has evolved over time and so has its school math-
ematics curriculum. The present-day School Mathematics Curriculum can best
be described as one that caters to the needs of every child in school. It is based
on a framework that has mathematical problem solving as its primary focus.
The attainment of problem solving ability is dependent on five inter-related
components—Concepts, Skills, Processes, Attitudes and Metacognition (Ministry
of Education, 2012a, 2012b). The three broad aims of mathematics education in
Singapore are to enable students to:
• acquire and apply mathematical concepts and skills;
• develop cognitive and metacognitive skills through a mathematical approach to
problem solving; and
• develop positive attitudes towards mathematics.
The mathematics curriculum is comprised of a set of syllabuses spanning 12 years,
from primary to pre-university, and is compulsory up to the end of secondary edu-

B. Kaur (B)
National Institute of Education, Singapore, Singapore
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 21

C. P. Vistro-Yu and T. L. Toh (eds.), School Mathematics Curricula,
Mathematics Education – An Asian Perspective,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6312-2_2
22 B. Kaur

cation. Syllabuses for the primary, secondary, and pre-university levels as well as
courses of study have specific sets of aims to guide the design and implementation
of the syllabuses suited for varying needs and abilities of students.

2.2 Developments that Shaped the Education System

in the Last Six Decades

The developments from 1946 to 2013 that have shaped the present School
Mathematics Curriculum in Singapore are direct consequences of developments in
the education system of Singapore during the same period. Major changes in the
education system during the last six decades fall into a number of reasonably well-
marked phases in the development of the system. Generally, the period from 1946
to 2013 may be categorized into five phases of development. These phases are as
follows.

2.2.1 1946–1965: Conflict-Resolution and Quantitative

Expansion (Yip, Eng & Yap, 1990)

Two major thrusts and priorities of this period stand out in bold relief. The first is the
use of education, in the period after 1959 to resolve some of the pressing conflicts and
dilemmas Singapore faced in the 1950s. The second concerns the pressure to rapidly
expand educational opportunities in Singapore with a view not only to democratizing
education, but also to using education as a device for achieving national cohesion
and the economic restructuring of the society. In 1959 when the People’s Action
Party (PAP) came to power, it acted upon the White Paper of 1956 and put in place
a Five-Year Plan in education. The main features of this plan were:
• Equal treatment of the four language streams of education: Malay, Chinese, Tamil
and English;
• The establishment of Malay as a national language of the new state;
• Emphasis on the study of Mathematics, Science and Technical Subjects.
The government embarked on an accelerated school building programme with
the objective of providing a place in school for every child of school-going age in
Singapore.

2.2.2 1965–1978: Qualitative Consolidation (Yip et al., 1990)

1965 witnessed the end of Singapore’s merger with Malaysia and the beginning
of a new chapter in the history of Singapore. It also marked the beginning of a
2 Evolution of Singapore’s School Mathematics Curriculum 23

transformation from statehood to nationhood. Under the leadership of PAP, education

remained a key to its survival. Education was crucial in facilitating the nation’s
economic transformation and of building a socially disciplined cohesive Singaporean
society. There was a shift in emphasis from academic to technical education to
provide the manpower base for industrialization. This period also witnessed the onset
of systematic improvements via research undertaken by the Ministry of Education
(MOE) to the education system.

2.2.3 1978–1984: Refinements and New Strides (Yip et al.,

1990)

By the late 1970s, certain “cracks” and weaknesses in the system had begun to man-
ifest themselves. Amongst the weaknesses identified by the MOE’s Study Team led
by Dr. Goh Keng Swee (Ministry of Education, 1979) was the high education wastage
resulting in low literacy levels in the country. In line with the “simple objective” of
education in Singapore,
…to educate a child to bring out his greatest potential so that he will grow into a good man
and a useful citizen. (Lee, 1979)

as spelt out by the then Prime Minister of Singapore in 1979 and the findings of the
Goh’s Report (Ministry of Education, 1979), the New Education System (NES) was
introduced in February, 1979. The NES introduced ability-based streaming both at
the primary and at secondary levels of education on the grounds that in the past a
common curriculum in the primary and secondary schools had failed to take into
consideration variations in the learning capacities of children. Streaming, according
to Goh’s report, would provide an opportunity for less capable students to develop at
a slower pace and would also enable a child to go as far as he can. Students who are
not academically inclined could still acquire basic literacy and numeracy required
for skills training. The NES was implemented in 1981. Students were streamed in
Primary 3 and Secondary 1.
In June 1980, the Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore (CDIS) was
established. It replaced the Education Development Division of the Ministry of Edu-
cation, which spearheaded the pioneering efforts in curriculum development for
Singapore schools. The main function of CDIS was the development of curriculum
and teaching materials. It was directly involved in the implementation of syllabuses
and systematic collection of feedback at each stage of implementation for the next
cycle of syllabus revision (Ang & Yeoh, 1990).
24 B. Kaur

2.2.4 1984–1996: Towards Excellence in Schools (Yip et al.,

1990)

1985 marked a watershed in the economic development of Singapore. Based on

two key reports, one in Singapore (Economic Committee, 1986) and another in the
United States (Tan, 1986), the Minister for Education in 1986 enunciated that future
education policies in Singapore would be guided by three principles. These were:
• Education policy must keep in pace with the economy and society;
• Basics—Languages, Science, Mathematics and Humanities will be stressed to
encourage logical thinking and life-long learning;
• Creativity in schools must be boosted through a “bottom up” approach whereby
the initiative must come from principals and teachers instead of from the Ministry
(Tan, 1986).
As part of an on-going process of self-improvement, in 1987 based on the report,
Towards Excellence in Schools (Ministry of Education, 1987), schools became the
centre of attention. This was a result of the premise that the goal of excellence
in education could only be achieved through better schools (Tan, 1987). Several
refinements to the NES have been made since its implementation in 1981. In 1991,
the level at which streaming in the primary school was carried out was changed to
Primary 4. In 1994, the Secondary Normal (Technical) Course was introduced to
Secondary 1 normal stream students.

2.2.5 1996–2013: The Way Forward… (Kaur, 2002)

In 1997, the Prime Minister, Mr. Goh Chok Tong in his speech (Goh, 1997) at the
opening of the Seventh International Conference on Thinking held in Singapore sig-
nalled that changes had to be made to the existing education system. These were
necessary to prepare young Singaporeans for the new circumstances and new prob-
lems that they will face in the new millennium. He emphasized that we must ensure
that our young can think for themselves, so that the next and future generations can
find their own solutions to whatever new problems they may encounter. He also
announced at the opening of the conference that Singapore’s vision for meeting
this challenge is encapsulated in four words: THINKING SCHOOLS, LEARNING
NATION.
Three initiatives were launched in Singapore’s education system in 1997. They
are National Education, Information Technology and Critical and Creative Thinking
(Ministry of Education, 1998). To forge the vision THINKING SCHOOLS, LEARN-
ING NATION (TSLN) and to push forward the initiatives of information technology
and critical and creative thinking, changes were recommended in four main areas,
namely curriculum, teaching, teachers and assessment (Ministry of Education, 1997).
To accommodate the recommendations, the MOE initiated a content reduction of all
2 Evolution of Singapore’s School Mathematics Curriculum 25

curricular subjects. Every subject underwent a content reduction ranging from 10 to

30% and the reduced content syllabuses became effective in 1999. The amount of
curriculum time for each subject remained the same. The instruction time freed up
by the reduced content supported the implementation of the three initiatives.
Since 1997, the MOE has begun a shift in strategic paradigm from an efficiency-
driven education system to an ability-driven (ADE) one. To achieve this, MOE is
equipping schools with the hardware and software necessary to bring about the
change. In 2000, at the MOE work plan seminar for school leaders it was noted
that the hardware to “make ADE happen” was already in place. To build up the
software, the emphasis was placed on the people factor—school leaders who create
an environment conducive to learning and innovation and teachers who are think-
ing and caring professionals who believe and share the vision—TSLN (Ministry of
Education, 2000).
The Teach Less, Learn More (TLLM) initiative was launched in the education
system in 2005 (Shanmugaratnam, 2005). TLLM builds on the groundwork laid in
place by the systemic and structural improvements under TSLN, and the changes
in mindset encouraged in schools. It continues the TSLN journey to improve the
quality of interaction between teachers and learners so that our learners can be more
engaged in real learning and achieve better the desired outcomes of education. TLLM
aims to touch the hearts and engage the minds of our learners, to prepare them for
life. It reaches into the core of education—why we teach, what we teach and how
we teach. It is about shifting the focus from “quantity” to “quality” in education.
It emphasizes “more quality” in terms of classroom interaction, opportunities for
expression, the learning of life-long skills and the building of character through
innovative and effective teaching approaches and strategies. It also emphasizes “less
quantity” in terms of rote learning, repetitive tests and following prescribed answers
and set formulae.

2.3 Developments in School Mathematics Curriculum

During the Last Six Decades

A school curriculum can be defined in terms of its aims, content and resources,
teaching and learning strategies, and assessment practices (Wong, 1991). However,
it also exists within a broader context involving the physical, political, cultural,
economic and social environments that define and constrain its role in educating the
people. It is clear from the review of the developments in the education system of
Singapore in the last six decades that the aims of the school curriculum are shaped
by the economic policies of the government that are necessary for the survival of
Singapore in a fast changing world. School mathematics curriculum as part of the
school curriculum has played a significant role in the economic development and
progress of Singapore during the last six decades. A review of developments in
school mathematics syllabuses follows.
26 B. Kaur

2.3.1 Diverse Beginnings…

Up to the late 1950s, schools in Singapore were mainly vernacular in nature, i.e.,
there were Chinese, Malay, Tamil and English schools. The language of instruction in
Chinese schools was Chinese, and their curricula were adopted from China. Likewise
the language of instruction in English schools was English, and their curricula were
adopted from Britain. Therefore, several mathematics syllabuses were in use across
Singapore, with each school adopting its own. The first local set of syllabuses for
mathematics was drafted in 1957 and published in 1959 (Lee, 2008). This set of
syllabuses, contained in a single booklet, was for the primary and secondary schools.
The syllabuses adopted a spiral approach and were for all schools irrespective of their
language streams. This set of syllabuses marked the first step towards the localization
of mathematics education in Singapore (Lee, 2008).
In 1959, after the PAP came into political power, the government placed emphasis
on educating the masses. In schools, the study of mathematics, science and technical
subjects was emphasized. The first local set of syllabuses, used across all schools,
gave little consideration to differences in the mathematical abilities of the students.
The secondary school mathematics syllabuses referred to as Syllabus B prepared
students for the mathematics examinations of the Cambridge Certificate of Education
conducted by the University of Cambridge Local Examination Syndicate (UCLES).

2.3.2 Keeping in Line with World Trends

A revision of the first local set of syllabuses for both the primary and secondary
schools took place in the late 1960s in response to the “Math Reform of the 1960s.”
The primary school mathematics syllabus was revised in 1971 with emphasis on
outcomes based approach to the teaching of mathematics in the primary schools
(Wong & Lee, 2010). It was again revised in 1979 and algebra became part of the
curriculum for grades 5 and 6 (Lee, 2008).
For secondary school mathematics, the revised syllabus known as Syllabus C
was implemented in the early 1970s (Lee, 2008). Towards the end of the 1970s the
syllabus underwent yet another revision resulting in Syllabus D. At the secondary
level, all students take the mathematics (elementary) course. At the upper secondary
level, the more able students take the additional mathematics course. Both courses
are based on the “Ordinary” level syllabuses of the University of Cambridge Local
Examination Syndicate (UCLES). Since the 1980s, Singapore secondary students
have been following the Syllabus D. The Ministry of Education issues the syllabus
for the Lower Secondary levels. This syllabus covers topics in Arithmetic, Men-
suration, Algebra, Graphs, Geometry, Statistics and Trigonometry. For each topic,
the syllabus describes the instructional objectives and lists the main concepts and
learning outcomes. These topics are a subset of the syllabus for the “Ordinary” level
UCLES mathematics examination.
2 Evolution of Singapore’s School Mathematics Curriculum 27

2.3.3 Mathematics for Every Child

In 1981, the New Education System (Ministry of Education, 1979) was imple-
mented. The goal of the New Education System (NES) was to provide for every
child in the system. Due to low achievement in mathematics, it was decided that
the primary mathematics curriculum (detailed syllabuses, textbooks, workbooks and
teacher guides) would be developed by the CDIS. Drawing on the expertise of interna-
tional consultants, curriculum writers at CDIS who were experienced teachers from
schools and the Ministry of Education, produced the first Primary Mathematics Cur-
riculum in 1981. The curriculum adopted the Concrete–Pictorial–Abstract approach
to the teaching and learning of mathematics. This approach provides students with
the necessary learning experiences and meaningful contexts, using concrete hands-on
materials and pictorial representations to construct abstract mathematical knowledge.
In 1983, the mathematics team writing the primary curriculum materials, led by
Dr. Kho, at CDIS made a breakthrough by addressing the difficulties students were
having with word problems. They introduced the “Model Method” (Kho, 1987) in the
curriculum for primary 5 and 6 students in the late 1980s. In the current curriculum,
students are introduced to the model method in primary 1. This method is now
synonymous with Singapore maths worldwide. In the NES, students were either
offered the standard mathematics course or the foundation of mathematics course.
The foundation mathematics course, which is a subset of the standard mathematics
course, caters to the less mathematically able students.
Also in 1981, the Ministry of Education produced a mathematics syllabus for
the Express and Special courses of study in the secondary school by organizing the
topics in Syllabus D into a four-year programme. Students in the Express and Special
course of study sat for the GCE “O” level examination at the end of the four years.
The mathematics syllabus of the Normal course students was a subset of that for the
Express course. These students took the “N” level examination at the end of four
years.
In 1988, the Curriculum Development Division of the Ministry of Education set
up a Mathematics Syllabus Review Committee to review and revise the mathematics
syllabuses in use since 1981. The goal of the committee was to study the adequacy
of the syllabuses in meeting the needs of the students and to revise the syllabuses
to reflect appropriate recent trends in mathematics education (Wong, 1991). It was
during this review that the committee felt that besides elaborating the aims and
objectives, a framework was necessary to describe the philosophy of the revised
curriculum. Hence, the framework that spells out mathematical problem solving
as the primary focus of the mathematics curriculum was developed (Fig. 2.1). This
coherent framework connects the “product” conception of mathematics and its “pro-
cess” aspect and links both of them to the five factors that facilitate the develop-
ment of mathematical problem solving (Wong & Lee, 2010). Figure 2.1 represents
an organizing framework that “presents a balanced, integrated vision that connects
and describes the skills, concepts, processes, attitudes and metacognition” (Lein-
wand & Ginsburg, 2007, p. 32). It also shows that the five components of the
28 B. Kaur

Fig. 2.1 Evolution of the school mathematics curriculum framework

framework—concepts, skills, attitudes, metacognition and processes—have

remained steadfast although some refinements have been made to the components
at periodic revisions of the school mathematics curriculum. These refinements have
heightened emphasis on aspects of the components based on research in mathematics
education and careful deliberations of mathematics educators at both the Ministry of
Education and National Institute of Education in Singapore.
In 1990, the revised Mathematics Syllabus for the New Education System was
implemented. The revised syllabuses for both the primary and secondary schools
placed emphasis on problem solving. The use of heuristics to solve problems was
propagated in the curriculum through in-service training of teachers, textbooks and
2 Evolution of Singapore’s School Mathematics Curriculum 29

assessment tasks. A predominant heuristic in primary mathematics was the “model

drawing” approach (Wong & Lee, 2010).
In 1992, the mathematics syllabus for the Normal (Technical) course students
was produced by the Ministry of Education (1992). The Normal course mathemat-
ics syllabus was also renamed as Normal (Academic) course mathematics syllabus
A (4010). The Normal (Technical) course mathematics syllabus is a subset of the
Normal (Academic) course syllabus. The Normal (Technical) course mathematics
syllabus T (4012) was implemented in 1994 when the Normal (Technical) course
came into being at the secondary one level for the first time.

2.3.4 Consolidation of Content

In 1997, following the implementation of three significant initiatives in the education

system, namely Thinking Schools, Learning Nation (TSLN), National Education
(NE) and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) there came the need
to create time for teachers to implement the initiatives. In order for teachers to infuse
thinking skills, integrate information technology and deliver key NE messages, the
curriculum content was reduced by up to 30% for most subjects. Thus, in 1998,
the mathematics syllabus underwent a content reduction exercise. The following
rationale guided it.
• The learning of mathematics is sequential and hierarchical in nature. Therefore,
essential topics and skills removed from one level were transferred to another level
in order to ensure continuity in the learning of the subject.
• Topics that were core content, i.e. essential as the foundation for further mathe-
matics learning, developed the desired outcomes of the syllabuses, and provided
continuity and completeness were retained.
• Topics that were less fundamental and not connected to other topics in the syllabus,
which placed heavy emphasis on mechanical computation, which overlapped with
those taught at other levels, that were too abstract for the intended level, and
concepts/skills that were taught in other subjects were removed from the syllabus.

2.3.5 Mathematics for Knowledge Based Economies

In 1998, following the content reduction exercise, a revision of the syllabuses was
undertaken to:
• Update the content to keep abreast with the latest developments and trends in
mathematics education.
• Explicate the thinking processes inherent in the subject and to encourage the use
of IT tools in the teaching and learning of mathematics.
30 B. Kaur

• Ensure the content meets the needs of the country in the next millennium (twenty
first century).
As a result of the revision, changes were made to the reduced content syllabus. It
must be noted that the revised syllabus and reduced content syllabus were almost the
same. A re-organization of the content was mainly carried out. There was minimal
increase in the content to emphasize the development of thinking skills and help
in the attainment of the objectives. A critical appraisal of the framework was also
undertaken. Two changes were made to the framework of the 1990 syllabus. Under
the arm of processes, “Deductive reasoning and Inductive reasoning” were replaced
by “Thinking skills,” which covered a much wider range of skills that students were
encouraged to use when solving problems. As an additional attribute, perseverance
was added to the arm of Attitudes.
The revised curriculum was implemented in 2001. In 2001, textbooks for the
primary school mathematics were privatized. This was done so that schools would
have more choices of curriculum materials though the scope of the content remained
the same. All the books that were available for use in schools must have been approved
by the Ministry of Education for use in Singapore schools for a specified period of
time. CDIS never produced curriculum materials for secondary school mathematics.
The first local textbook series for secondary schools was published in 1969 by Teh
(1969).
Since 2001, the school mathematics curriculum has undergone two successive
periodic revisions, one in 2006 and the last one in 2012. These six year cycles
of revision ensure that the curriculum remains relevant in this rapidly changing and
highly competitive and technologically driven world. As people are the only resource
of Singapore, education is the key to the success of its economy and its survival (Goh,
2001). At present it may be said that every child in school does mathematics that
is suited to his or her ability. School mathematics curriculum emphasizes a balance
between mastery over basic skills and concepts and the application of higher order
thinking skills to solve mathematical problems.

2.4 Mathematics Courses at School

2.4.1 Primary School Mathematics

Primary school consists of six years of schooling. The first four years constitute the
foundation stage and the next two years the orientation stage. During the foundation,
stage emphasis is on building a strong foundation in the English language, Mathe-
matics and the Mother Tongue. All students take the same course for mathematics.
In the orientation stage, students are grouped according to ability. Subject-based
banding is adopted. Students either take the Foundation Mathematics or Standard
Mathematics course of study. The Foundation Mathematics syllabus is a subset of
the Standard Mathematics course of study. Students in the Foundation Mathematics
2 Evolution of Singapore’s School Mathematics Curriculum 31

course do not cover the topics algebra and ratio in primary 5 and 6, while those
in the Standard Mathematics course do. The content for the other topics varies in
depth. Table 2.1 shows an extract from the primary school mathematics syllabuses
(Ministry of Education, 2012a).
The recommended instructional time per week for mathematics in the primary
school is shown in Table 2.2. It is apparent from Table 2.2 that Primary 5 and 6
students in the Foundation course devote more time than their peers in the Standard
course doing mathematics.

Table 2.1 An extract from the primary school mathematics syllabus

Standard mathematics course Foundation mathematics course
Rate (P5) Rate (P5)
• Rate as the amount of a quantity per unit of • Rate as the amount of a quantity per unit of
another quantity another quantity
• Finding rate, total amount, or units given the • Finding rate, total amount, or units given
other two quantities the other two quantities
• Solving word problems involving rate • Solving up to 3-step word problems
Distance, time and speed (P6) involving rate
• Concepts of speed and average speed
• Relationship between distance, time and
speed (exclude conversion of units, e.g. km/h
to m/min)
• Writing speed in different units such as km/h,
m/min, m/s and cm/s
• Solving up to 3-step word problems
involving speed and average speed
Percentage (P5) Percentage (P6)
• Expressing a part of a whole as a percentage • Expressing a part of a whole as a percentage
• Use of % • Use of %
• Finding a percentage part of a whole • Finding a percentage part of a whole
• Finding discount, GST and annual interest • Finding discount, GST and annual interest
• Solving up to 2-step word problems • Solving up to 2-step word problems
involving percentage involving percentage
Percentage (P6)
• Finding the whole given a part and the
percentage
• Finding the percentage increase/decrease
• Solving word problems involving percentage

Table 2.2 Curriculum time Primary 1–2 4h

per week for mathematics
(primary) Primary 3–4 5.5 h
Primary 5–6 (Standard mathematics) 5h
Primary 5–6 (Foundation mathematics) 6.5 h
32 B. Kaur

2.4.2 Secondary School Mathematics

Students sit a national examination called the Primary School Leaving Examination
(PSLE) at the end of Primary 6. The examination assesses student’s suitability for
secondary education and places them in an appropriate secondary school course that
matches their learning ability. Two courses are available at the secondary school level.
Students undergo four or five years of secondary education with different emphases.
• Express Course—a four-year course leading to the GCE “O” level examination. In
this course students learn English, their mother tongue, mathematics and a range
of other science and humanities subjects at the ordinary level.
• Normal Course—a four-year course leading to the GCE “N” level examination.
A fifth year is available to students who do well in this examination to prepare for
and take the GCE “O” level examination. Students in this course follow either the
Normal (Academic) or Normal (Technical) curriculum. In the N(A) curriculum,
they will learn English, mother tongue, mathematics and a range of subjects similar
to those in the Express course. In the N(T) course, students will learn English,
mother tongue at a basic level emphasizing oral/aural competence and reading
comprehension, mathematics, computer applications and subjects with a technical
and practical bias such as technical studies.
As mathematics is a compulsory subject for students in school, the mathematics
curriculum at the secondary school level is differentiated to cater to the needs and
abilities of students in the different courses. Core mathematical concepts are common
to all courses, and the content for the Special Course is identical to the Express
Course. The content for the Normal (Academic) Course is a subset of the content for
Express Course while that of the Normal (Technical) Course is a subset of the Normal
(Academic) Course. For all the three courses, most of the topics taught at the various
year levels for mathematics are similar. However, the depth at which they are taught in
a particular year level differs. Table 2.3 shows an extract from the secondary school
mathematics syllabuses (Ministry of Education, 2012b) highlighting the varying
depths.
The recommended instructional time per week for mathematics in the secondary
school is shown in Table 2.4. Students in the Special, Express and Normal (Academic)
courses spend the same amount of time per week doing mathematics. Students in
the Normal (Technical) course spend relatively much more time doing mathematics
compared to their peers in the other courses of study.

2.5 Singapore’s Performance in TIMSS and PISA

Singapore participates in international studies such as Trends in International Mathe-

matics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Programme for International Student Assess-
ment (PISA) to benchmark the outcomes of schooling, viz-a-viz the education system
2 Evolution of Singapore’s School Mathematics Curriculum 33

Table 2.3 An extract from the secondary school mathematics syllabus

Secondary one—Algebra
Special/Express course
• Algebraic expressions and formulae
• Use letters to represent numbers
• Express basic arithmetic processes algebraically
• Substitute numbers for words and letters in formulae and expressions
• Simple algebraic manipulation
• Manipulate simple algebraic expressions—include collecting like terms and removing brackets
• Simple linear equations
• Solve simple linear equations
• Solve problems involving linear equations—emphasize understanding of the problem leading
to formulation of mathematical expressions/equations
Normal (Academic) course
• Algebraic expressions and formulae
• Use letters to represent numbers
• Express basic arithmetic processes algebraically
• Substitute numbers for letters in formulae and expressions
• Simple algebraic manipulation
• Manipulate simple algebraic expressions—include collecting like terms and removing brackets
Normal (Technical) course
• Algebraic expressions and formulae
• Concept and notation
• Use letters to represent numbers
• Express basic arithmetic processes algebraically
• Substitution
• Substitute numbers for letters in expressions and formulae (exclude expressions with brackets
and expressions involving squares and high powers)
• Simplification
• Simplify simple algebraic expressions (include collecting like terms but exclude removing of
brackets at this level and expressions involving squares and higher powers)

Table 2.4 Curriculum time Special/express course 2.5–3 h

per week for mathematics
(secondary) Normal (Academic) course 2.5–3 h
Normal (Technical) course 4–5 h

against international standards. It also does so to learn from educational systems that
are excelling, to update school curriculum and keep abreast of global advances and
to contribute towards the development of excellence in education internationally. To
date, Singapore has participated in TIMSS in 1995, 1999, 2003, 2007 and 2011.
Table 2.5 shows Singapore students’ achievement in mathematics in those years.
34 B. Kaur

Table 2.5 Singapore TIMSS Rank

students’ mathematics
achievement in TIMSS Grade 4 Grade 8
1995 1 1
1999 – 1
2003 1 1
2007 2 3
2011 1 2

Table 2.6 Singapore Rank

students’ mathematics
achievement in PISA PISA 2009 2
PISA 2012 2

Singapore began participating in the Organization for Economic Cooperation

and Development (OECD) study—Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA) in 2009. So far it has participated in PISA 2009 and 2012. Table 2.6 shows
Singapore students’ achievement in mathematics for PISA 2009 and 2012.
It may be argued that amongst other factors such as the teacher, the learner and the
learning environment, the school mathematics curriculum is a cornerstone that con-
tributes towards Singapore’s performance in international benchmark studies such
as TIMSS and PISA. It may be said that the curriculum is tailored to meet the needs
of the students and matched to their abilities. The constant revision of the curriculum
ensures that it remains relevant and prepares school leavers for the rapidly changing
demands of the future work force.
Mr. Andreas Schleicher, Special Advisor to the Secretary General on Education
Policy and Deputy Director for Education and Skills of OECD, who was in Singapore
to launch the PISA 2012 results on Problem Solving in April 2014, said,
Singapore’s education system has at times been criticised for encouraging rote learning at the
expense of developing creative skills. The PISA 2012 assessment of problem solving skills
proves those critics wrong. It shows that today’s 15-year-olds in Singapore are quick learners,
highly inquisitive, able to solve unstructured problems in unfamiliar contexts, and highly
skilled in generating new insights by observing, exploring and interacting with complex
situations. Indeed, no education system outperforms Singapore on this test. (Ministry of
Education, 2014).

Reflecting on the strong performance of Singapore’s students in PISA 2012,

Ms. Ho Peng, the Director-General of Education in Singapore, remarked,
“We are pleased with the strong performance by our students in PISA 2012. This affirms our
efforts in giving our students not just a strong foundation in literacy and numeracy, but also
in equipping them with the skills to solve problems in real-world contexts. Over time, our
teaching strategies have focused on helping students gain a deeper conceptual understanding
and developing their thinking skills. Our students can navigate well in unfamiliar contexts
because of the many opportunities to learn not just within the classroom, but also beyond the
2 Evolution of Singapore’s School Mathematics Curriculum 35

classroom through co-curricular activities and service projects. We will continue to look for
ways to help our students grow to become compassionate and confident citizens, contributing
not only to Singapore but also to the world.” (Ministry of Education, 2014).

2.6 Concluding Remarks

Singapore’s education system has evolved over time into one that offers quality
education for all in school. In tandem, Singapore’s school mathematics curriculum
too has evolved over time. Today every child in school has the opportunity to do
mathematics that is suited to his or her ability. Education in Singapore is key to the
survival of the nation as people are its only resource (Goh, 2001). School mathematics
curriculum, at present, emphasizes a balance between mastery over basic skills and
concepts in Mathematics and the application of higher order thinking skills to solve
mathematical problems.
For any curriculum revision to succeed changes must be systematic; they cannot
be piecemeal efforts independent of one another. Most importantly no initiative in
education can succeed without the enthusiastic participation of every teacher (Wee,
1997). It is hoped that with the close monitoring and support given to teachers the gap
between the intended curriculum and implemented curriculum would be as narrow
as possible. A nation-wide paradigm shift in education is also necessary for the
success of the TSLN vision, the essence of which is that any syllabi, curriculum and
much of our other teaching and learning materials would become obsolete with time
but keeping a thinking culture as a way of life would hold us steadfast all the way
(Nathan, 2001).

References

Ang, W. H., & Yeoh, O. C. (1990). 25 years of curriculum development. In J. S. K. Yip & W. K. Sim
(Eds.), Evolution of educational excellence—25 years of education in the Republic of Singapore
(pp. 81–106). Singapore: Longman Singapore Publishers (Pte) Ltd.
Economic Committee. (1986). Report of the Economic Committee the Singapore Economy: New
Directions (Chaired by B. G. Lee Hsien Loong). Singapore: Ministry of Trade and Industry.
Goh, C. T. (1997). Shaping our future: “Thinking Schools” and a “Learning Nation”. Speeches,
21(3), 12–20. Singapore: Ministry of Information and the Arts.
Goh, C. T. (2001). Shaping lives, moulding nation. Speech at the Teachers’ Day Rally, Friday 31st
August 2001. Singapore: Ministry of Education.
Kaur, B. (2002). Singapore’s school mathematics curriculum for the 21st century. In J. Abramsky
(Ed.), Reasoning, explanation and proof in school mathematics and their place in the intended
curriculum—Proceedings of the QCA International Seminar, 4–6 October 2001 (pp 166–177).
London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, UK.
Kho, T. H. (1987). Mathematical models for solving arithmetic problems. In Proceedings of the
fourth South East Asia Conference on Mathematics (ICMI-SEAMS) (pp. 345–351). Singapore:
Institute of Education.
36 B. Kaur

Lee, K. Y. (1979). Letter in response to the report on the Ministry of Education by Dr Goh and his
team. In Ministry of Education, Report on the Ministry of Education by Dr Goh and his team.
Singapore: Ministry of Education.
Lee, P. Y. (2008). Sixty years of mathematics syllabus and textbooks in Singapore (1949–2005).
In Z. Usiskin & E. Willmore (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum in pacific rim countries—China,
Japan, Korea and Singapore (pp. 85–94). Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing.
Leinwand, S., & Ginsburg, A. (2007). Learning from Singapore math. Educational Leadership,
65(3), 32–36.
Ministry of Education. (1979). Report on the Ministry of Education by Dr Goh and his team.
Singapore: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (1987). Towards excellence in schools. Singapore: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (1992). Mathematics syllabus—Secondary 1 and 2 normal (technical)
course. Singapore: Curriculum Planning Division, Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (1997). towards thinking schools. Singapore: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education (1998). Mathematics Newsletter, 1(17). Singapore: Curriculum Planning and
Development Division, Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (2000). In Proceedings of MOE Work Plan Seminar: Ability-Driven Educa-
tion—Making It Happen. Singapore: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (2012a). Primary mathematics teaching and learning syllabus. Singapore:
Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (2012b). O-level, N(A)-level & N(T)-level mathematics teaching and learning
syllabus. Singapore: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (2014). PISA 2012 Study: Singapore students excel in thinking flexibility
and creatively to solve complex and unfamiliar problems. Singapore: Ministry of Education Press
Release.
Nathan, J. M. (2001). Making “thinking schools” meaningful: Creating thinking cultures. In J. Tan,
S. Gopinathan, & W. K. Ho (Eds.), Challenges facing the Singapore Education system today
(pp. 35–49). Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Shanmugaratnam, T. (2005). Teach less learn more (TLLM). Speech by Mr. Tharman Shanmugarat-
nam, Minister of Education, at the MOE Workplan Seminar 2005. Retrieved April 24, 2014 from
http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2005/.
Tan, T. K. Y. (1986). Speech delivered at the Nanyang Technological Institute, July 22, 1986.
Tan, T. K. Y. (1987). Speech delivered at the First Schools Council Meeting. Straits Times, January
14, 1987.
Teh, H. H. (Ed.) (1969). Modern mathematics for Singapore schools. Singapore: Pan Asian Pub-
lishers.
Wee, H. T. 1997. Towards thinking schools, learning nation. Open letter from the Director-General
of Education to principals and teachers. Singapore: Ministry of Education.
Wong, K. Y. (1991). Curriculum development in Singapore. In C. Marsh, & P. Morris (Eds.),
Curriculum development in East Asia (pp. 129–160). London: Falmer Press.
Wong, K. Y., & Lee, N. H. (2010). Issues of Singapore mathematics education. In F. K. S. Leung,
& Y. Li (Eds.), Reforms and issues in school mathematics in East Asia (pp. 91–108). Sense
Publishers.
Yip, S. K. J., Eng, S. P., & Yap, Y. C. J. (1990). 25 Years of educational reform. In J. S. K. Yip &
W. K. Sim (Eds.), Evolution of educational excellence—25 Years of education in the Republic of
Singapore (pp. 1–30). Singapore: Longman Singapore Publishers (Pte) Ltd.
2 Evolution of Singapore’s School Mathematics Curriculum 37

Berinderjeet Kaur is a Professor of Mathematics Education at the National Institute of Education

in Singapore. She holds a Ph.D. in Mathematics Education from Monash University in Australia.
In 2010, she became the first full professor of Mathematics Education in Singapore. She has been
involved in numerous international studies of Mathematics Education and was the Mathematics
Consultant to TIMSS 2011. She was also a core member of the MEG (Mathematics Expert Group)
for PISA 2015. Her accolades at the national level include the public administration medal in 2006
by the President of Singapore, the long public service with distinction medal in 2016 by the Pres-
ident of Singapore and in 2015, in celebration of 50 years of Singapore’s nation building, recog-
nition as an outstanding educator by the Sikh Community in Singapore for contributions towards
nation building.
Chapter 3
New School Mathematics Curricula,
PISA and PMRI in Indonesia

Zulkardi and Ratu Ilma Indra Putri

Abstract This chapter discusses and analyzes the development of the new school
mathematics curriculum in Indonesia. The curriculum is a part of the National Cur-
riculum 2013 that has already been implemented since July 2013. About 6000 schools
all over Indonesia were selected. The implementation began at grades 1, 4, 7, and
10. In 2014, the implementation was extended to all grades. Some reasons behind
the change in the curriculum are discussed. Furthermore, this implementation of the
new curriculum drew on the experience of a team in implementing an innovation in
mathematics education, known as the Indonesian version of Realistic Mathematics
Education, the Pendidikan Matematika Realistik Indonesia (PMRI). This chapter
also presents some activities of mathematics curriculum development in the context
of PMRI. The implementation process of the PMRI materials in schools using an
Educational Design Research (EDR) method is also presented. This chapter con-
cludes with some remarks on the new school mathematics curricula, the Programme
for International Student Assessment (PISA) and PMRI.

3.1 Introduction

When PISA 2012 results were released by OECD in December 2, 2013, the per-
formance of students in mathematics, science, and reading from various countries
topped the headlines of many newspapers all around the world. Many of these papers
recognized the rising performance of East Asian countries, since the top seven then
were Shanghai-China, Singapore, Hong Kong-China, Chinese Taipei, Korea, Macau-
China, and Japan. Three ASEAN countries, Thailand, Malaysia, and Vietnam, were
ranked 50th, 52nd, and 17th, respectively. In comparison, Indonesia was ranked 64th
among the 65 participating countries. In other words, based on this international com-

Zulkardi (B) · R. I. I. Putri

Sriwijaya University, Palembang, Indonesia
e-mail: [email protected]
R. I. I. Putri
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 39

C. P. Vistro-Yu and T. L. Toh (eds.), School Mathematics Curricula,
Mathematics Education – An Asian Perspective,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6312-2_3
40 Zulkardi and R. I. I. Putri

Table 3.1 Development of No. Year Name

school curriculum in
Indonesia since 1945 (MoEC, 1 1947 Lesson plan
2012) 2 1964 Education plan for primary education
3 1968 Primary school curriculum
4 1973 Curriculum project for development school
5 1975 Primary school curriculum
6 1984 1984’s curriculum
7 1994 1994’s curriculum
8 1997 1994’s revised curriculum
9 2004 Prototype of competency-based curriculum
10 2006 KTSP (curriculum level of education entity)
11 2013 Curriculum 2013

parative study, the performance of Indonesian students in mathematics was among

the lowest of the participating countries. This result led to the printing of the follow-
ing headline by Tempo, one of the most critical newspapers in Indonesia: “Quality of
education in Indonesia the worst in the world” (Tempo, 2013). In contrast, Indone-
sian students were ranked first among the 65 participating countries as the happiest
students in schools (OECD, 2013).
Since the first PISA in 2000, Indonesian students’ performance in the test has
always been low. In PISA 2009, Indonesia was ranked 61st among the 65 participating
countries. More information about PISA in Indonesia can be found in the studies by
Stacey (2011) and Stacey et al. (2015). Besides the PISA results, the performance
of the grade 8 Indonesian students in mathematics in the Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) was also low. In TIMSS 2011, Indonesia
was ranked 38th among the 42 participating countries.
Based on the low achievement of students in PISA and TIMSS results, the Indone-
sian government revised her school mathematics curriculum in 2012. The new school
curriculum was called “Curriculum 2013.” Table 3.1 shows that Curriculum 2013
was the tenth revised curriculum since the independence of Indonesia in 1945.
This chapter presents the rationale, implementation, and the practices related to
the new mathematics curriculum in Indonesia, known as Curriculum 2013.

3.2 Why Curriculum 2013?

Data from the international comparative studies was one main impetus for a cur-
riculum revision in order to address the education problems of Indonesia. What was
equally pressing was for education reforms in Indonesia to prepare their students and
become future-ready. This was reflected in a speech by the Minister of Education
3 New School Mathematics Curricula, PISA and PMRI in Indonesia 41

and Culture, Muhammad Nuh, who stated four main reasons behind the change in
the school curricula (MoEC, 2012).
(1) Future challenge
The school curriculum should adapt and respond to the future challenges of the
Indonesian citizen, particularly in relation to globalization. The most immediate
challenge facing Indonesia at that time was the anticipated ASEAN integration
in 2015. With this looming change across the region, the Indonesian citizen
had to thrive in a highly competitive situation along with all other ASEAN
countries. Another future challenge was the fast development of the information
and communications technology (ICT) sector that presented many possibilities
including the utilization of ICT as media for learning. In this sense, the old
curriculum needed to be revised. Finally, with the international comparative
studies TIMSS and PISA setting the tone for the future of mathematics and
science education and the continuous low performance of Indonesian students
in TIMSS and PISA, the content material of the mathematics curriculum needed
to be aligned to the framework of TIMSS and PISA.
(2) Future competencies
Indonesia needed her students to be equipped with competencies and develop
characteristics in order to be future-ready. These include communication skills,
critical thinking, good attitudes, ability to work in a team, and smart citizenship.
These skills and characteristics had to be included as some of the main goals of
learning in the new curriculum.
(3) Societal phenomena
Developments in society and social realities make it imperative to study the kind
of education that the students are getting. It is hoped that students’ attitudes and
character would improve with the new curriculum. It is believed that social
phenomena such as corruption and dishonesty can be reduced or even elimi-
nated, given radical improvements in the quality of education and development
of better attitudes among students.
(4) Perceptions by society
According to many critics, the mathematics curriculum prior to Curriculum
2013 was deemed to be too content-heavy for the students. Besides the heavy
content, the previous curriculum had been perceived by the society as only
focusing on cognitive knowledge. Ideally, the three learning outcomes of edu-
cation, namely cognitive, attitude, and psychomotor skills, must be balanced.
This was addressed in Curriculum 2013.
Although the above four reasons for the curriculum revamp seemed logical, many
criticisms were published and discussed in the newspapers and were ultimately
addressed to the Minister of Education. The criticisms covered broad categories
of concerns that include the following: (1) the new curriculum was implemented too
quickly without being tested; (2) the published textbooks were not research-based;
and (3) the teachers were not trained to use these resources.
42 Zulkardi and R. I. I. Putri

3.3 Changes Effected in Curriculum 2013

There were four important broad categories of changes that took effect in Curriculum
2013.
1. Mathematical competencies
There was an effort to balance the three key competencies in the learning out-
comes: Attitude (religious, democratic, responsible, self-confident, and polite);
Knowledge (understanding concepts of mathematics); and Skills (creativity and
innovativeness). It was also emphasized that new knowledge and skills need to
be mastered through mathematical processes that emphasize and put premium
on logical thinking, critical thinking, steadfastness, divergent thinking, innova-
tion, creativity, and teamwork. These competencies were identified as necessary
in getting, managing, and using information for better living in the competitive
world. In addition, the knowledge and skills of problem-solving and communi-
cation were also underscored (MoEC, 2012).
The following are the goals of school mathematics in the new Mathematics
Curriculum 2013 (MoEC, 2012). Students are expected to be able to:
(1) Understand and explain concepts of mathematics and use them in problem-
solving. In the curriculum document, the use of realistic problems and media
in instructional processes is suggested.
(2) Learn to reason using patterns and to generalize based on the availability of
data.
(3) Solve mathematics problems, including problems in the real world, prob-
lems related to the sciences, and with technology. In solving problems,
students are in particular able to understand the problem, develop mathe-
matical models, manipulate the models, and use the mathematical results to
interpret the real-life problems.
(4) Communicate ideas, reason and justify or prove using full sentences, sym-
bols, tables, diagrams, or other media.
(5) Have a good attitude toward mathematics and use mathematics in their daily
lives. Develop curiosity and confidence in solving problems.
(6) Have good attitudes and habits that match the value in mathematics and
its learning such as steadfastness, self-confidence, openness, discipline, and
honesty.
2. Mathematical content
The principle of content change of Curriculum 2013 is described below.
(1) Curriculum materials were aligned to the PISA materials. Indonesian stu-
dents were not able to solve higher-order thinking problems in PISA. The
content of the school curriculum must prepare students to solve such prob-
lems.
3 New School Mathematics Curricula, PISA and PMRI in Indonesia 43

(2) The mathematical content in Curriculum 2013 focused on the materials that
foster students’ development of reasoning, problem-solving skills, argu-
mentation, modeling, and communication skills in mathematics.
3. Teaching and learning processes
The changes in emphasis on the teaching and learning processes are classified
according to the following categories:
(1) Thematic integration. This approach involves integrating two or more sub-
jects, or two or more strands in mathematics. This thematic integration for
mathematics is only carried out in grades 1–6.
(2) Scientific method or inquiry/discovery learning. In this approach, mathemat-
ics learning begins with a task or a problem. Then, students carry out the
steps in the inquiry-based learning, namely observing, questioning, associat-
ing, experimenting, and communicating. This approach is known as 5 M (in
Indonesian language Mengamati, Menanya, Menalar, Mencoba, dan Mem-
presentasikan). During interaction after completing the task, students will
discuss the task in a collaborative way.
4. Assessment strategies
Four assessment strategies were introduced in Curriculum 2013.
(1) Assessment of students’ thinking at all levels (starting from low-order think-
ing to high-order thinking);
(2) Assessment of both processes and products of students’ work;
(3) Use of students’ portfolios as an alternative assessment strategy; and
(4) Use of open-ended tasks as assessment.
Table 3.2 summarizes the comparison between Curriculum 2013 and the previous
curriculum.

3.4 Pendidikan Matematika Realistik Indonesia (PMRI)

3.4.1 The Theory

In order to implement Curriculum 2013, the framework of PMRI was adopted. PMRI,
the Indonesian version of Realistic Mathematics Education, is a domain-specific
instruction theory, which offers guidelines for instruction that aim at supporting
students in constructing or reinventing mathematics in a problem-centered interactive
environment (Gravemeijer, 1994). This theory can be traced back to the ideas of the
well-known mathematician and mathematics educator Hans Freudenthal. He argued
that students should engage in “mathematics as a human activity” instead of being
taught mathematics as a “ready-made product.” According to Freudenthal (1991),
students should be given the opportunity to reinvent mathematics using well-chosen
tasks and with the help of teachers. This point of departure, for some decades, formed
44 Zulkardi and R. I. I. Putri

Table 3.2 Analysis of changes in school mathematics curricula (MoEC, 2013)

No. Previous curriculum New curriculum
1 Students only used rules for solving Students have to know both the history of
problems rules and how to use the rule (higher-order
thinking and low-order thinking)
2 Mathematics problems were only Mathematics problems use both numbers
associated with numbers and other non-numeral cues [e.g., images,
graphics, patterns]
3 Mathematics learning began directly at the Mathematics learning begins with a
abstract level problem in the real-world context, which
paves the way for semi-concrete and
finally moving to abstract or formal
mathematics
4 Students were guided to use procedural Students are guided to use critical thinking
approach in solving mathematics problems in a creative way in solving problems,
which focused on exact mathematical including open-ended problems, and they
solutions may use estimation and approximations in
solving the problems

the basis of design research in the Netherlands and elsewhere, which resulted in the
development of a range of local instruction theories.
There are five characteristics of PMRI: (1) use of real-world contexts as a starting
point for learning mathematics; (2) use of models as a bridge between abstract and
real world that helps students learn mathematics at different levels of abstractions;
(3) use of student’s own production or strategy as a result of their doing mathematics;
(4) interaction as essential for learning mathematics between teacher and students,
students and students, and (5) connection among strands, both within and extension
to other disciplines, and to meaningful problems in the real world. Here, we reiterate
that PMRI is the Indonesian version of RME, within the Indonesian context and
culture.

3.4.2 History of PMRI

The story of PMRI began in 1994 when Sembiring, Professor at the Department of
Mathematics from ITB Bandung, met Jan de Lange, Director of Freudenthal Institute
Utrecht University, at the second ICMI-China Regional Conference in Mathemat-
ics Education in Shanghai. Professor Sembiring learnt from Professor Jan about the
success of Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) in the Netherlands. Then, in
1998, they both agreed to send six Ph.D. candidates from different teacher education
institutions in Indonesia to study RME in the Netherlands. The recruitment process
was through a seminar in ITB Bandung, where candidates were selected for a Ph.D.
in mathematics education at the University of Twente (UT) in cooperation with the
3 New School Mathematics Curricula, PISA and PMRI in Indonesia 45

Freudenthal Institute of Utrecht University (FI UU). The selection was conducted
by Professor Tjeerd Plomp (UT) and Professor Jan de Lange (FI). Four selected stu-
dents obtained their Ph.D. from that program and became professors in mathematics
education and leading agents in the PMRI movement in Indonesia.
Furthermore, in 2001, Sembiring invited a group of Dutch educators, some from
the FI UU to initiate a project that aimed to adopt RME as an innovation in mathemat-
ics education in Indonesia. The project was supported by the Netherlands through
NUFFIC/NESO (Netherlands Education Support Office) and Indonesia through the
DGHE. The project stretched to 2010 and included the main goals of implement-
ing and disseminating realistic mathematics in Indonesia to the primary schools
via the teacher education programs. It is now known as PMRI, namely Pendidikan
Matematika Realistik Indonesia or the Indonesian version of Realistic Mathematics
Education. For a formal introduction to PMRI, see an article on PMRI in ZDM inter-
national journal posted online (Sembiring, Hadi, & Dolk, 2008). In addition, a book
that described the success of PMRI after a decade of implementation in Indonesia was
published (Sembiring, Hooglands, & Dolk, 2010). Over the last decade, the PMRI
team, with the support of a group of Dutch mathematics educators, created a new
image of mathematics education, especially in primary schools. With the coopera-
tion of teachers, lecturers, deans, and stakeholders at the Department of Education,
they implemented a series of workshops, carried out design research in classrooms,
designed learning materials, produced standards for mathematics education, and
educated master’s and Ph.D. students.
In 2001, the PMRI project was initiated in 12 primary schools (SD), 4 Madrasah
Ibtidaiyah Negeri (MIN), in collaboration with 4 LPTKs, namely Universitas Pen-
didikan Indonesia (UPI), Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY), Universitas Sanata
Dharma (USD), and Universitas Negeri Surabaya (UNESA). This activity was con-
ducted by the PMRI team with a small budget funded by the Indonesian DIKTI
(DGHE) and the Dutch government (see also Sembiring & Zulkardi, 2012). Over the
years, 23 LPTKs have been involved, each LPTK working with thousands of schools
that are either SD/MIN or SMP/MTs.

3.4.3 Curriculum Development in PMRI

The curriculum development activities of PMRI refer to all activities that relate to
the implementation of PMRI in the schools. The following activities are the products
of the project.

Curriculum materials development The PMRI team agreed that teachers have to
develop their own lessons based on the theory of RME. There are two main activities
of curriculum development in the context of PMRI, namely the task of developing
school textbooks and exemplary lesson materials. The former is usually held by
a team of teacher educators and teachers who implement PMRI in their region.
The latter is conducted by researchers and graduate students. In order to guide the
46 Zulkardi and R. I. I. Putri

developer in making a lesson and learning materials, the PMRI team developed a
standard for a PMRI lesson and a standard for learning materials based on PMRI
that can be used as guidelines (Hadi, Zulkardi, & Hoogland, 2010).

Teacher development: Seminar and workshop for teachers The PMRI team
conducts at least twice a year professional development programs for in-service
mathematics teachers in the form of a workshop. Most of the workshops focus on
developing lesson materials and simulating the use of the materials in the classroom.
The PMRI team also guided their communities who wanted to conduct a PMRI
workshop following a workshop standard (Hadi et al., 2010).

Assessment: Mathematics literacy contest The PMRI team has been conducting
an activity called Kontes Literacy Mathematics (KLM) since 2011. This activity is
categorized as assessment activity by the PMRI team. It was initiated by the Center of
PMRI at the Sriwijaya University in Palembang. After three years, the KLM has been
joined and conducted in the 16 big cities in Indonesia such as Banda Aceh, Medan,
Padang, Palembang, Jakarta, Jogjakarta, Surabaya, Makassar, Manado, and Kupang.
The purpose of the KLM is to familiarize students of age 15 years at junior high school
level to PISA-type mathematics items. Furthermore, the mathematics teachers who
accompany their students during mathematics competitions are given the opportunity
to attend a PISA workshop. This workshop helps mathematics teachers understand
the principles of PISA assessment items. Detailed information about PISA and KLM
activities is documented in the blog of PISA Indonesia at the following address:
http://pisaindonesia.wordpress.com/. This website publishes news about activities
of all KLMs, PISA items released by OECD, and PISA-like items developed by the
PMRI team.

Center of PMRI (P4MRI) and its website The P4MRI, which stands for Pusat
Penelitian dan Pengembangan PMRI, is also called the center of excellence for
researching and developing PMRI. The P4MRI serves as the center of informa-
tion as well as a meeting point for teachers, teacher educators, and student teachers.
It has a website that links all the supplementary websites of the P4MRI from 32
teacher education programs that implement the PMRI in schools within the region.
The website http://www.p4mri.net serves as a portal that links all the P4MRI web-
sites from all over the provinces in Indonesia. In order to guide teacher education
development and manage the center of the PMRI or the P4MRI, the PMRI team
developed standards for establishing centers for the PMRI (see Hadi et al., 2010).

International master program on PMRI The IMPoME (International Master

Program on Mathematics Education) program was founded in 2009 as an integral
part of the dissemination of the PMRI to schools. Through this program, the teacher
education programs are able to recruit new graduates of the program from all over
Indonesia to become new staff in mathematics education. The IMPoME is a collab-
oration of the State University of Surabaya (UNESA), the University of Sriwijaya
(UNSRI), as well as Utrecht University (UU). The program starts with an intensive
four months of English training, followed by a semester of graduate mathematics
3 New School Mathematics Curricula, PISA and PMRI in Indonesia 47

education courses. During this period, a team from UU would come to Indonesia
to select students who are qualified to continue their study in UU for a year. The
selection is strict; usually, only half or less than half of the students are qualified.
Those students who are not eligible to go to UU continue their study at UNESA or
UNSRI.
After their return to Indonesia, besides taking more courses, each student has to
conduct research based on their accepted proposal, usually in schools using Design
Research or Educational Design Research (EDR). They also need to present their
findings in a special seminar attended by representatives of UU. The local seminar
has grown into a regional seminar called South East Asian Design Research (SEA-
DR) Conference in 2013 at UNSRI Palembang. The purpose of the conference is to
build a community of design researchers in mathematics education.
The fourth batch of the IMPoME program finished in 2014. Most of the alumni of
the first three batches were working as teacher educators in their teacher education
programs. Their master’s theses have been published online at http://www.fisme.
science.uu.nl/en/impome/. Some of their theses have also been published in journals
such as the Indonesian Mathematical Society Journal on Mathematics Education
(IndoMS-JME) that can be accessed freely at http://ejournal.unsri.ac.id/index.php/
jme/. Furthermore, three of the theses have been published in international journals
(see Bustang, Zulkardi, Darmawijoyo, Dolk, & van Eerde, 2013; Risma, Putri, &
Hartono, 2013; Sumarto, van Galen, Zulkardi, & Darmawijoyo, 2014).

3.5 Conclusion

Some new components in Curriculum 2013 are similar to the characteristics of PMRI.
First, in the content material, the use of contexts or themes is an important point both in
Curriculum 2013 and PMRI. Second, how to integrate among strands of mathematics
topics and how to integrate mathematics with other subjects were valuable concerns.
The integration of more than one strand of mathematical topics and of mathematics
with other subjects is one of the characteristics of PMRI. This idea is similar to
producing good instructional learning materials that make use of contexts or themes
as a starting point in learning mathematics. Third, in relation to assessment, new
competencies are also emphasized in Curriculum 2013, namely problem-solving,
reasoning, communication, and modeling. Open-ended problems are also stressed in
the new curriculum. These competencies are used in the three levels of assessments
in the PMRI (Zulkardi, 2002).
To conclude, the main reason for developing Curriculum 2013 was to address
the problem of the poor performance of Indonesian students in PISA and to prepare
Indonesian students to be future-ready. There are some changes in emphasis on
the competencies, content material, method, and assessments. These changes have
created a new set of problems for teachers during the implementation phase. Problems
such as how to design thematic integrative contents, how to teach using the scientific
method, and how to design high-order thinking problems or open-ended problems
48 Zulkardi and R. I. I. Putri

arose. Guidelines were needed in order to address these new problems. The PMRI
is an innovation in mathematics education in Indonesia that has been implemented
over the last decade. Following the best practices of RME, the PMRI has become a
vehicle for implementing Curriculum 2013 and, in particular, improving the quality
of mathematics education in Indonesia in the future.

References

Bustang, B., Zulkardi, Z., Darmawijoyo, D., Dolk, M., & van Eerde, D. (2013). Developing a
local instructional theory for learning the concept of the angle through visual field activities and
spatial representations. International Education Studies, 6(8), 58–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/
ies.v6n8p58.
Ekholm, M., & Hoven, G. H. v. d. (2009). PMRI—Majulah! (move forward!) Report of the DO-
PMRI International Advisory Board. Jakarta, Utrecht: APS International.
Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education. China lecture. Utrecht.
Gravemeijer, K. (1994). Developing realistic mathematics education. Utrecht.
Hadi, S., Zulkardi, Z., & Hoogland, K. (2010). Quality assurance in PMRI. Design of standards
for PMRI. In R. K. Sembiring, K. Hoogland, & M. Dolk (Eds.), A decade of PMRI. Bandung,
Utrecht: APS International.
Kompas. (2013). Issue on the curriculum 2013. Edukasi.
MoEC. (2012). Content and process standard of school mathematics in the curriculum 13. Jakarta:
Author.
MoEC. (2013). Mathematics guidelines at the primary school. Jakarta: Author.
OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 results in focus. What 15 year-olds know and what they can do with
what they know. Available online www.oecd.org/pisa.
Risma, D. A., Putri, R. I. I., & Hartono, Y. (2013). On developing students’ spatial visualization
ability. International Educational Studies, 6(9), 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n9p1.
Sembiring, R. K., Hadi, S., & Dolk, M. (2008). Reforming mathematics learning in Indonesian
classrooms through RME. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40, 927–939. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11858-008-0125-9.
Sembiring, R. K., Hoogland, K., & Dolk, M. (2010). A decade of PMRI. Bandung, Utrecht: APS
International.
Sembiring, R. K., Hadi, S., Zulkardi, Z., & Hoogland, K. The future of PMRI. In R. K. Sembiring,
K. Hoogland, & M. Dolk (Eds.), A decade of PMRI. Bandung, Utrecht: APS International.
Sembiring, R. K., & Zulkardi, Z. (2012). PMRI from KNM 2000 to 2012. Paper presented in KNM
16 in Padjajaran University, Bandung.
Stacey, K. (2011). PISA view of mathematics literacy in Indonesia. Indonesian Mathematical Soci-
ety Journal on Mathematics Education (IndoMS-JME), 2(1), 1–24.
Stacey, K., Almuna, F., Caraballo, M. R, Chesné, J., Garfunkel, S., Gooya, Z. … Zulkardi, Z.
(2015). PISA’s influence on thought and action in mathematics education. In K. Stacey, & R.
Turner (Eds.). Assessing mathematical literacy—The PISA experience (pp. 275–306). Cham,
Switzerland: Springer.
Sumarto, S. N., van Galen, F., Zulkardi, Z., & Darmawijoyo, D. (2014). Proportional reasoning:
How do the 4th graders use their intuitive understanding. International Education Studies, 7(1),
69–80.
Tempo. (6 December 2013). Mutu Pendidikan Indonesia terendah di dunia (Quality of education in
Indonesia the worst in the world). Available online http://www.tempo.co/read/news/2013/12/06/
173535256/Mutu-Pendidikan-Indonesia-Terendah-di-Dunia.
Zulkardi, Z. (2002). Designing a learning environment on realistic mathematics education for
Indonesian teachers. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Twente, Enschede.
3 New School Mathematics Curricula, PISA and PMRI in Indonesia 49

Zulkardi, Z. (2012). Context and content curriculum in Indonesia school mathematics. Paper pre-
sented at the International Seminar & Workshop: The Use of Contextualized Tasks to Foster
Mathematics Learning, Padang.

Zulkardi is Professor and the Head of Doctoral Program on Mathematics Education at the Faculty
of Teacher Training and Education, University of Sriwijaya, Indonesia. He was a teacher educator
and obtained a Ph.D. in (realistic) mathematics education at the University of Twente in collabo-
ration with Freudenthal Institute Utrecht University. He is the ICMI representative for Indonesia
2016–2020 and Chief Editor of Indonesian Mathematical Society Journal on Mathematics Educa-
tion.

Ratu Ilma Indra Putri is a Professor and the Head of Master Program on Mathematics Education
at the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, University of Sriwijaya, Indonesia. She was a
teacher educator and obtained a Ph.D. in research and evaluation in mathematics education at the
Jakarta State University, Indonesia. She continues to do research on Realistic Mathematics Edu-
cation and Lesson Study for Learning Community with schoolteachers. She is actively involved
in the Indonesian Mathematical Society and is Chief Editor of Journal Pendidikan Matematika
(Mathematics Education Journal).
Chapter 4
A New Model of Mathematics
Curriculum and Instruction System
in Thailand

Maitree Inprasitha

Abstract Most of the problems associated with educational reform that are com-
mon among the developing countries are issues like grass root-based curriculum
changes and, structural reforms of organizations and are rarely concerned with grad-
ual changes informed by research and development, unlike in the developed countries.
This chapter describes the mathematics curriculum reform efforts in Thailand in the
previous four decades. An idea on how to develop a new model of mathematics cur-
riculum and instruction system in Thailand is then presented. This model has been
built upon three missing elements: (1) bridging the gap between school and univer-
sity mathematics using students’ real-world and mathematizing activities, (2) shifting
from a product-oriented approach to both product- and process-oriented approaches,
and (3) complementing the top-down approach with the bottom-up approach to cur-
ricular reform. Finally, the chapter illustrates how this model has been successfully
implemented through the efforts of Center for Research in Mathematics Education,
Khon Kaen University halfway through the full cycle of the model.

4.1 A Brief History of Mathematics Curriculum Reform

in Thailand

When talking about curriculum reform, mostly the focus is on the intended curriculum
reform, and rarely on the implemented and attained curricular reforms. In the last
four decades, there were four major intended mathematics curriculum reforms in
Thailand. These occurred in 1960, 1978, 2001 and 2008. Each revision had a different
focus. In 1960, the intended mathematics curriculum revision focused on content
knowledge; however, the students were quite weak in applying and implementing
this knowledge in their daily life. For the revision in 1978, the intended mathematics
curriculum focused on mathematical content knowledge, understanding and skills.
There was a major paradigm change in the 2001 curriculum reform. For the first

M. Inprasitha (B)
Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 51

C. P. Vistro-Yu and T. L. Toh (eds.), School Mathematics Curricula,
Mathematics Education – An Asian Perspective,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6312-2_4
52 M. Inprasitha

time, the intended mathematics curriculum revision focused on mathematical skills,

processes and attitudes as well as mathematical creativity. The handbook of the Basic
Education Core Curriculum 2551 (2008) recognized that the Basic Education Core
Curriculum 2544 (2001) had many important goals such as facilitate educational
decentralization and involve the different localities and schools in designing a school-
based curriculum that responds to their needs and demands. Furthermore, the 2001
curriculum supported students’ holistic development.
Local studies on the 2001 curriculum revealed a number of problematic features
about it particularly, on how to implement the new curriculum at the school level.
The ambiguity on how to develop the school-based curriculum resulted in placing too
much emphasis on learning outcomes and contents. This in turn affected other ele-
ments such as measurement and evaluation and credit transferring. Needless to say,
there was a marked disappointment with the quality of education that the students
were getting. Given the unsatisfactory evaluation results and in order to comple-
ment the tenth national socio-economic plan and the stated focus of the Ministry of
Education on human development for the twenty-first century, the 2001 core basic
education curriculum was subsequently revised in 2008. This time, in order to avoid
unintended ambiguities and for proper guidance of the teachers, the revised ver-
sion was explicit in its curriculum vision, goals, students’ competencies and desired
character, learning outcomes and other indicators (Ministry of Education, Thailand,
2008).
After the release of the Twelfth National Socio-economic Development Plan
(2017–2021) and with the reported global issues surrounding the Sustainable Devel-
opment Goals (SDG), the Ministry of Education revised the 2008 curriculum. The
2017 revised curriculum focuses directly on developing the twenty-first-century skills
and preparing students for work after graduation in the new era of the ASEAN. Thus,
the goals of this reform were stated as: (1) obtaining content knowledge that is at par
with international standards; (2) acquiring the explicitly stated learning standards and
indicators; (3) connecting knowledge in the same content areas as well as between the
various content areas; (4) focusing on STEM education by the integration of sciences,
mathematics and technology; (5) organizing the contents by giving consideration of
the difficulties and constraints in cognitive development and; (6) connecting content
knowledge and learning processes (Ministry of Education, Thailand, 2017).
Although there is such an ambitious goal of education reform, the curriculum still
prescribes the learning areas/activity and learning time as shown in Table 4.1.
From Table 4.1, it can be seen that the curriculum prescribes what students should
learn in school into eight learning areas with some extra activities. It is noticed that
the learning times for the Thai language and mathematics are quite high compared
to other learning areas even in the lower primary education level. However, it is
quite not clear how much importance is given to STEM based on the curriculum
framework.
Table 4.2 shows some extractions from the framework that illustrate the Ministry’s
efforts to emphasize mathematical learning processes and skills (in italics), which
are important parts of the twenty-first-century skills in the curriculum. However, the
descriptions regarding these complicated skills are general and difficult for school
Table 4.1 Framework for the learning time according to the Basic Education Core Curriculum, B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008), the Ministry of Education, Thailand
Learning Learning time (in hours)
areas/activities
Primary education level Lower secondary education level Upper secondary
education level
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G 10–12
• Learning areas
Thai language 200 200 200 160 160 160 120 (3 crs) 120 (3 crs) 120 (3 crs) 240 (6 crs)
Mathematics 200 200 200 160 160 160 120 (3 crs) 120 (3 crs) 120 (3 crs) 240 (6 crs)
Science 80 80 80 80 80 80 120 (3 crs) 120 (3 crs) 120 (3 crs) 240 (3 crs)
Social studies, 120 120 120 120 120 120 160 (4 crs) 160 (4 crs) 160 (4 crs) 320 (8 crs)
religion and culture
– History 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 (1 cr) 40 (1 cr) 40 (1 cr) 80 (2 crs)
– Religion, morality 80 80 80 80 80 80 120 (3 crs) 120 (3 crs) 120 (3 crs) 240 (6 crs)
and ethics, civics,
culture and living
in society,
economic,
geography
Health and physical 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 (2 crs) 80 (2 crs) 80 (2 crs) 120 (3 crs)
education
4 A New Model of Mathematics Curriculum and Instruction System …

Arts 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 (2 crs) 80 (2 crs) 80 (2 crs) 120 (3 crs)

Occupations and 40 40 40 80 80 80 80 (2 crs) 80 (2 crs) 80 (2 crs) 120 (3 crs)
technology
Foreign languages 40 40 40 80 80 80 80 (2 crs) 80 (2 crs) 80 (2 crs) 120 (3 crs)
(continued)
53
Table 4.1 (continued)
54

Learning Learning time (in hours)

areas/activities
Primary education level Lower secondary education level Upper secondary
education level
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G 10–12
Total learning time 840 840 840 840 840 840 880 (22 crs) 880 (22 crs) 880 (22 crs) 1640 (41 crs)
(basic level)
• Learner 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 360
development
activities
• Additional Not more than 40 h for each year Not more than 200 h for each year Not less than 1600 h
courses/activities
provided by schools,
depending on their
readiness and
priorities
Total learning time Not more than 1000 h for each year Not more than 1200 h for each year Not less than 3600 h
for a total of 3 years
M. Inprasitha
4 A New Model of Mathematics Curriculum and Instruction System … 55

teachers to catch an idea for implementation in the real classroom. More details of
the learning areas’ studies, standards and grade-level indicators can be seen in the
appendix. However, these are also not much helpful for understanding of higher-order
thinking skills, which curriculums all over the world are striving for.
Clearly seen as distinct from previous evolutionary steps taken by the Ministry
is a completely new section on skills and processes and issues associated with the
revised curriculum since 2001. As for the section on contents, the same five elements
were retained: number and operations, measurement, geometry, algebra, and data
analysis and probability. The new section on skills and processes consisted of six
elements: problem-solving, representation, communication, connection, proof and
reasoning and creativity (Ministry of Education, 2001). Policy-makers, curriculum
developers, other related educational personnel and teachers were quick to notice the
distinguishing features of this new curriculum, which emphasized not only contents
or subject matter, but also learning processes, and desirable characteristics. This
came to be known as the first decade of the educational reform movement, and it
coincided with the beginning of the information age in Thailand. During the first
half of this reform, we witnessed many activities in support of the new curriculum,
observing a huge number of innovative programmes and projects implemented in the
schools, with the support of the Ministry of Education, other governmental and non-
governmental organizations, as well as projects initiated by the schools themselves.
In order to encourage and support teachers to contribute to the success of those ini-
tiatives, the government made a concerted effort to strengthen the reform curriculum.
In particular, a new system for teacher professional development was implemented.
This was modelled after the promotion system used in Thai universities; that is, the
teachers can be promoted to get both basic salary and position salary if their academic
work has been approved by an ad hoc committee. This promotion system stimulated
the teachers in every school to take on academic work that went beyond teaching,
for example, performing some classroom research, documenting it and submitting
it to the ad hoc committee for approval. Unfortunately, the outcome of what seemed
at the time to be a promising approach could only be called ‘successful’ in terms
of improving the teachers but not the students. A number of newspaper headlines
read ‘has not much change in the classroom’, ‘still need innovation for real change
in the classroom’, etc. It seemed that whatever changes have resulted did not reach
the classrooms. The struggle to learn the ‘best practices’ on how best to change
the classroom in a way that really promotes ‘teachers’ as well as improves students’
performance in the classroom has never been more real. Following this development,
many Thai education experts have been pondering on whether the nation must begin a
new journey and embark upon the second decade of educational reform (2010–2019).

4.2 Missing Elements of Curriculum Reform

Throughout Thailand’s history of reform, the focus had been on changes to the
content and little else, and from the poor results that these reforms have been able
56 M. Inprasitha

Table 4.2 Learning Areas Studies categorized by each of three educational levels (i.e. grade 1–6,
grade 7–9 and grade 10–12)
Grade 3 graduates
• Have numerical knowledge, understanding and sense of cardinal numbers not more than 100,000, and zero as well
as operation of numbers; can solve problems involving addition, subtraction, multiplication and division; and are
aware of validity of the answers reached
• Have knowledge and understanding of length, distance, weight, volume, capacity, time and money; can measure
correctly and appropriately; and can apply knowledge of measurement for solving problems faced in various
situations
• Have knowledge and understanding of triangle, quadrilateral, circle, ellipse, cuboid, sphere and cylinder as well as
point, line segment and angle
• Have knowledge and understanding of pattern and can explain relationship
• Can collect and analyse relevant data and information about themselves and their surroundings in their daily lives;
can avail of pictograms and bar charts for discussing various issues
• Can apply diverse methods for problem-solving; can avail of mathematical knowledge, skills and processes
appropriately for solving problems faced in various situations; can suitably present reasoning for decision-making
and appropriately present the conclusion reached; can use mathematical language and symbols for
communication, as well as accurate and appropriate communication and presentation of mathematical concepts;
can link various bodies of mathematical knowledge; can link mathematics with other disciplines; and have attained
ability for creative thinking
Grade 6 graduates
• Have numerical knowledge, understanding, and sense of cardinal numbers and zero, fractions, decimals of not
more than three places, percentages, operation of numbers and properties of numbers; can solve problems involving
addition, subtraction multiplication and division of cardinal numbers, fractions, decimals of not more than three
places and percentages; are aware of validity of the answers reached; and can find estimates of cardinal numbers
and decimals of not more than three places
• Have knowledge and understanding of length, distance, weight, area, volume, capacity, time, money, direction,
diagrams and size of angles; can measure correctly and appropriately; and can apply knowledge of measurement
for solving problems faced in various situations
• Have knowledge and understanding of characteristics and properties of triangles, squares, circles, cuboids,
cylinders, cones, prisms, pyramids angles and parallel lines
• Have knowledge and understanding of patterns and can explain their relationships and solve problems involving
patterns; can analyse situations or problems as well as write linear equations with an unknown that can be solved
• Can collect data and information and discuss various issues from pictograms, bar charts, comparative bar charts, pie
charts, line graphs and tables that are availed of for presentation; and can apply knowledge of basic probability in
projecting various possible situations
• Can apply diverse methods for problem-solving, availing of mathematical and technological knowledge, skills, and
processes appropriately to solve problems faced in various situations; can suitably provide reasoning for
decision-making and appropriately present the conclusions reached; can use mathematical language and symbols
for communication as well as accurate and appropriate communication and presentation of mathematical
concepts; can link various bodies of mathematical knowledge and can link mathematical knowledge with other
disciplines; and have attained ability for creative thinking
(continued)
4 A New Model of Mathematics Curriculum and Instruction System … 57

Table 4.2 (continued)

Grade 9 graduates
• Understand concepts of numbers, ratio, proportion, percentage, real numbers expressed in exponential notation
with integer indices, square root and cube root of real numbers; can carry out operations involving integral
numbers, fractions, decimals, exponents, square roots and cube roots of real numbers; can apply numerical
knowledge in real life
• Have knowledge and understanding of surface areas of prisms and cylinders, and volume of prisms, cylinders,
pyramids, cones and spheres; can appropriately choose units of the various systems of measuring length, area and
volume; and can apply knowledge of measurement in real life
• Can construct and explain stages of constructing two-dimensional geometric figures with compass and straight
edge; can explain characteristics and properties of three-dimensional geometric figures, i.e. prisms, pyramids,
cylinders, cones and spheres
• Understand properties of congruence and similarities of triangles, parallels, Pythagoras’ theorems and converse;
can apply these properties for reasoning and problem-solving; and understand geometric transformation through
translation, reflection and rotation
• Can visualize and explain characteristics of two-dimensional and three-dimensional geometric figures
• Can analyse and explain relationships of patterns, situations or problems; and can use single-variable linear
equations, two-variable linear equation systems, single-variable linear inequality and graphs in problem-solving
• Can determine an issue, write questions about a problem or a situation, determine methods of study and collect and
present data by utilizing pie charts or any other forms of presentation
• Understand concepts of the measures of central tendency, arithmetic mean, median, and mode of non-frequency
distribution data that can be chosen appropriately for application, as well as apply knowledge in considering
statistical data and information
• Understand the concepts of random sampling and probability; can apply knowledge of probability for projecting
and for decision-making in various situations
• Can apply diverse methods for problem-solving; avail mathematical and technological knowledge, skills and
processes appropriately to solve problems faced in various situations; can suitably provide reasoning for
decision-making and appropriately present the conclusion reached; can use mathematical language and symbols
for communication; can communicate and present mathematical concepts accurately and clearly; can link various
bodies of mathematical knowledge; can link mathematical knowledge, principles and processes with other
disciplines; and have attained ability for creative thinking
Grade 12 graduates
• Have concepts of the real number system, absolute values of real numbers and real numbers expressed in radicals
and in exponential notation with rational indices; can find estimates of real numbers expressed in radicals and
exponents through appropriate calculation methods; and can apply properties of real numbers
• Apply knowledge of trigonometric ratio for estimating distance and height, and can solve measurement problems
• Have concept of sets and their operation; and can apply knowledge of Venn–Euler diagrams for problem-solving
and checking validity of reasoning
• Understand and can apply reasoning through induction and deduction
• Have concepts of relation and function that can be applied for problem-solving in various situations
• Understand concepts of arithmetic sequence, geometric sequence and can find general terms; understand the
concepts of the sums of the first n terms of arithmetic and geometric series, by using formulas that can be applied
• Know and understand the concept of solving equations and inequalities with one variable (degree not more than
two); and can also use graphs of equations, inequalities or functions for problem-solving
• Understand simple methodology for opinion polling; can choose central tendency suitable to data and objectives;
can find arithmetic mean, median, mode, standard deviation and percentile of data; can analyse data and apply
results of data analysis for facilitating decision-making
• Understand concepts of random sampling and probability; can apply knowledge of probability for projection and
for decision-making in various situations
• Can apply diverse methods for problem-solving; can avail of mathematical and technological knowledge, skills and
processes for appropriately solving problems faced in various situations; can suitably provide reasoning for
decision-making and appropriately present the conclusions reached; can use mathematical language and symbols
for communication; can communicate and present mathematical concepts accurately and clearly; can link various
bodies of mathematical knowledge, principles, and processes with other disciplines; and have attained ability for
creative thinking

From the Basic Education Core Curriculum B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008), the Ministry of Education, Thailand
58 M. Inprasitha

to deliver, it is apparent that there is a need to go beyond content. There are three
crucial elements that need to be incorporated into the teaching of mathematics and
to implement these will require a complete paradigm shift, not just in the teaching
of mathematics in the classroom, but also in the curriculum design process.
It was more than a hundred years ago when Felix Klein (1902–1908, 2004) made
this all-too-important statement: ‘There is a gap between university mathematics and
school mathematics.’ (Biehler & Peter-Koop, 2008, p. 2), but most of those who are
associated with the mathematics curriculum in Thailand seem unaware of this gap.
Thus, the mathematics curriculum and mathematics teaching at the school level con-
tinue to merely respond to the demands of university mathematics. The value placed
on the entrance examination is one manifestation. The problem is exacerbated by the
proliferation of many cram schools causing teachers to strictly adhere to teaching
techniques that focus on the test rather than teaching for conceptual understanding.
Another manifestation is seen in how the structural nature of mathematics and the
dominant use of the jargon prevalent in university mathematics simply filter down to
the school level. This has hindered the development of genuine learning. Currently,
the teaching of mathematics in the high school level starts by explaining definitions
with some examples. The only links to real-world situations are through applications,
for example, a word problem. As a result, many researches have confirmed that most
high school students are weak in applying mathematics to solve real-world prob-
lems. It is imperative that mathematics become more meaningful for students and
thereby engender a deeper appreciation of its value. The solution lies in an approach
that focuses on the mathematization process rather than the mathematical content.
Such an approach facilitates the development of ideas and skills in problem-solving
by allowing the students to confront real-world situations (Klein, 1902–1908; 2004
cited in Biehler & Peter-Koop, 2008; Inprasitha, 2015a).
The shift from a product-oriented approach to a product–process-oriented
approach is another crucial issue in Thailand’s mathematics curriculum reform. When
considering the textbook as an important aspect of mathematics curriculum, Inpr-
asitha (1997) found that the Thai mathematics textbooks still focus on routine and
calculation problems (i.e. still focus on the products). For example, in teaching 9 +
4 to first-grade students, the curriculum indicator emphasis is on how to calculate in
order to get the correct answer. Most first graders use a counting strategy to get 13 as
the answer to this problem. This focus is a reflection of the way in which the textbook
writes the problem: 9 + 4 = . This form of a given problem presupposes an answer,
which Becker and Shimada (1997) described as a ‘closed problem’. When using the
product–process-oriented approach in tackling the same problem (i.e. addition which
has a sum greater than 10), students are encouraged to make use of their previously
learned tools coupled with their mathematics schema. In this example, they would
complete the addition using composing/decomposing and making tens strategies in
order to make sense of this simple equation.
One of the most important issues in education in the twenty-first century is teach-
ing thinking skills, rather than teaching subject or content. By the end of the twentieth
century, a challenging issue for teaching was teaching for active learning. Dale’s
model (1969) of teaching for active learning is familiar to most educators around the
4 A New Model of Mathematics Curriculum and Instruction System … 59

world. However, this model focuses on ‘active learning’ in terms of ‘students being
able to do something’. A more challenging aspect of teaching for active learning
that promotes initiative on the students’ part is ‘how to teach students to think while
they are doing something’ (Bonwell & Eison, 1991). This concept was coined as
metacognition by Flavell (1976, 1979, 1981), which means, ‘to become aware of
one’s own thinking’. To use the aforementioned example of teaching 9 + 4, it is
necessary to teach students how to be more aware of previously learned ‘tools’ and
to make use of them when they encounter new or unknown situations for the first
time.

4.3 Innovative Development of the Mathematics

Curriculum in Thailand

Thailand uses a traditional model of mathematics curriculum: intended curriculum,

implemented curriculum and attained curriculum (Westbury & Travers, 1990; cf. in
Kilpatrick, 2009). In this model, the most emphasis lies on designing the intended
curriculum and very little on the implemented and attained curriculum. It is a kind of
top-down approach with little or no feedback from the classroom, thereby excluding
any revision process for refinement and continued development. Moreover, it forces
a separation of curriculum and instruction, rather than the recognition of instruction
as a ‘how to’ of the curriculum system at the implementation level (Fig. 4.1). During
the last two decades, for each time the political situation changed, much time was
spent on redesigning the intended curriculum with the expectation that the whole
system will function. However, each new government is only able to complete the
blueprint of the curriculum but is never able to implement it down to the classroom.
In other words, the Ministry of Education tends to focus on ‘what’ to teach, but
less on ‘how to teach’ and ‘to what extent’ students learn. Thus, it is necessary to
incorporate a bottom-up approach to this model (Fig. 4.2).
To enable the three elements previously mentioned to be incorporated into the
teaching of mathematics necessitates a sea of changes from the existing top-down
curriculum model. The existing model does not allow or consider that critical think-
ing, and the approach used to teach mathematics is important. It focuses solely on test
scores and ignores the abilities and inputs of one of the nation’s greatest resources,
its teachers. With this in mind and a focus on the four developmental processes
needed, Inprasitha (2015c) created a new model of curriculum and instruction sys-
tem (Fig. 4.3).
The developmental processes (labelled DP-1 to DP-4) create a research and devel-
opment (R&D) cycle for a macrosystem of a curriculum revision process. For exam-
ple, Japan takes 10 years to complete this R&D cycle. More importantly, in Singapore,
Korea and Japan, there are institutes or organizations in charge of this R&D cycle.
Unfortunately, in Thailand we do not have a clear picture of which organization is in
charge of this R&D cycle. For DP-1, the Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Sci-
60 M. Inprasitha

Fig. 4.1 A top-down approach model of mathematics curriculum

Fig. 4.2 A top-down and bottom-up approach model of mathematics curriculum

ence and Technology (IPST) and Office of the Basic Education Commission (OBEC)
are in charge of this job. However, the IPST also does some parts of DP-2 and DP-3.
For DP-2, each educational institute has its own teacher education programme even
though they have to follow the standards set by the Teacher’s Council of Thailand. The
institutes responsible for teacher professional development programmes do not seem
systematic. For DP-3, there is the National Institute of Educational Testing Service,
a public organization, but it does not perform the function of R&D in the curriculum
revision process. Lastly, for DP-4, there is no organization assigned to do educational
policy research like the National Institute for Educational Policy Research (NIER)
in Japan or the Korean Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation (KICE) in Korea. It
is not easy to restructure this macrosystem as the government has been making some
4 A New Model of Mathematics Curriculum and Instruction System … 61

Fig. 4.3 A new model of curriculum and instruction system. Modified from Inprasitha (2015c)

effort in the last two decades. Yet, there are still many controversial issues in this
country that need to be overcome. As Kilpatrick (2009) advises
Regardless of the nature of a project to change the school mathematics curriculum, it appears
that the role of the teacher is critical. “Every teacher is involved in curriculum development,
whatever curriculum he [or she] follows, and there are obvious reasons why he [or she]
should know as much as possible about its construction and be able to examine it critically.
(p. 108)
(Howson, Keitel, & Kilpatrick, 1981; cf. Kilpatrick, 2009)

To solve the aforementioned problem at the school level, The Center for Research
in Mathematics Education, Khon Kaen University, started a small project creating an
R&D cycle based on this curriculum model. In 2006, the project translated Japanese
mathematics textbooks to be used in the first two project schools that were implement-
ing Lesson Study and Open Approach (Inprasitha, 2006) as innovations for teaching
mathematics. Students in the mathematics teacher education programmes also used
these textbooks in many courses, which prepared them to work with school teachers
at the two project schools. Teachers at the project schools also have been trained
to use these textbooks through a lesson study team at each school. Both student
teachers and school teachers work together in a lesson study team. In these project
schools, student teachers and school teachers play important roles in the curricu-
lum development process, planning research lessons together every week focusing
on anticipating students’ ideas, teaching the research lessons with a team member
observing the class, and doing postlesson discussion every end of the week. These
activities create a microlevel of the R&D cycle of a mathematics curriculum revision
system. There are evidences of changes in the classroom level, but there are still
some problems with the assessment system. It takes many years (3 or 6 years) to
62 M. Inprasitha

prove that the students’ mathematics achievement scores have improved. However,
most teachers in the project schools are calling for a new assessment system to fit
into this new approach of teaching mathematics. We have succeeded in doing DP-1
and 2 but still have problems with DP-3 and 4 in order to complete the full R&D
cycle of this model.

4.4 Concluding Remarks

The model of a mathematics curriculum and instruction system presented in this

chapter is not only a new proposal for mathematics curriculum reform in Thailand
but also for other countries that are faced with the same issues to consider and
emulate. There are many aspects to this model that provide a macroscopic view
of curriculum reform at the national level. For example, it might be more efficient
to have institutes or organizations that are in charge of each function according to
the four developmental processes in the model. Politics should not intervene in this
proposed R&D cycle, as is often the case in Thailand. The intended curriculum or
blueprint for the new curriculum should be revised based on all feedback obtained
from all stakeholders.
The curriculum model shifts the beginning point of the reform process. Instead
of starting from the curriculum blueprint, in the project schools, reform starts from
the classroom, placing more importance on the role of school teachers in the cur-
riculum development process. Furthermore, the new teacher education programme
has been designed to bridge the gap between teacher preparation and teacher profes-
sional development in schools. The mathematics textbooks and the teaching approach
become much more important in designing the mathematics curriculum. Rather than
starting with ‘standards’ or ‘indicators’, the design focuses on the content sequence
in the textbook based on students’ ideas and centering on ‘problem-solving’ as a
teaching approach. In other words, teaching mathematics based on students’ ideas
has been brought to the fore. Designing a mathematics curriculum that emphasizes
‘real-world problem situations’, which connect with students’ meaningful experi-
ences is critical. These experiences are now being fully embedded in all aspects of
teaching mathematics in the classroom. Lesson Study and Open Approach (Inpra-
sitha, 2003, 2006, 2010, 2015b, 2016, 2017) are innovations that aim to bring student
teachers and teachers to work together and improve the quality of instruction in the
classroom. After 12 years, there is substantial proof that the two project schools have
obtained some success; for example, the teaching of mathematics in classrooms has
transformed and professional learning communities have been created. These project
schools have also become learning resources for other schools. Finally, national test
scores have been soaring well beyond the national average. Indeed, in this model,
mathematics curriculum change in Thailand is a real journey for both students and
school teachers.
4 A New Model of Mathematics Curriculum and Instruction System … 63

Appendix

Learning Areas Studies, Standards and Grade-Level Indicators

In the Basic Education Core Curriculum B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008)

Strand 1: Numbers and Operations

Standard M1.1: Understanding diverse methods of presenting numbers and their application in real
life
Grade-level Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
indicators
1. Write and ≤100 ≤1000 ≤100,000 0, fractions, – –
read Hin- one place
du–Ara- decimals
bic and
Thai
numerals
showing
quantity
of objects
or
cardinal
numbers
2. Compare ≤100, 0 ≤1000, ≤100,000, 0 0, fractions, – –
and 0 one place
arrange decimals
sequence
of
cardinal
numbers
3. Write and – – – – With not 3 places
read more than 2
fractions, places
mixed
numbers
and
decimals
(continued)
64 M. Inprasitha

(continued)
Grade-level Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
indicators
4. Compare – – – – With not 3 places
and more than 2
arrange places
sequence
of
fractions
and
decimals
5. Write •
fractions
in
decimal
form and
percent-
ages and
vice versa
• Write per- – – – – –
centages
in the
forms of
fractions
and
decimals,
and write
decimals
in the
forms of
fractions
and
percentages
6. Write – – – – – •
decimals
in the
form of
fractions
and write
fraction
in form of
decimal.
4 A New Model of Mathematics Curriculum and Instruction System … 65

Strand 1: Numbers and Operations

Standard M1.2: Understanding results of operations of numbers, relationships of operations and

application of operations for problem-solving
Grade- Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
level
indicators
1. Add, ≤ 100, 0 ≤1000, 0 ≤100,000, – – –
subtract 0
and mix
addition
and sub-
traction
of
cardinal
numbers
2. Analyse Analyse Analyse Analyse Analyse, Analyse Analyse
and find and find and find and show show and and show and show
answers ≤100, 0 ≤1000, 0 method be able to method of method of
to prob- ≤100,000, construct finding finding
lems 0 problems answers to answers to
and mix problems problems
prob- and mix and mix
lems of problems problems
cardinal of cardinal of cardinal
numbers numbers numbers,
fractions
mixed
numbers,
decimals
and per-
centages
3. Add, – – – MultiplicationFractions Multiplication
subtract and and and
and mix division of decimals division of
addi- cardinal of not fractions,
tion, numbers, 0 more than mixed
subtrac- 2 places numbers
tion, and
multi- decimals
plica-
tion and
division
of
cardinal
numbers
and 0
66 M. Inprasitha

Strand 1: Numbers and Operations

Standard M1.3: Use of estimation in calculation and problem-solving

Grade-level indicators Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
1. Make approximate estimates of
• Integers of 10, 100 and – – – – •
1000 of cardinal numbers,
which can be applied
• Various integers of cardinal •
numbers, which can be
applied
2. Make estimates of – – – – – •
decimals of not more than
3 places

Strand 1: Numbers and Operations

Standard M1.4: Understanding of numerical system and application of numerical properties

Grade-level indicators Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
1. Use communicative, – – – – – •
associative and distributive
properties in calculation
2. Find highest common – – – – – •
factor (H.C.F.) and lowest
common multiples
(L.C.M.) of cardinal
numbers
4 A New Model of Mathematics Curriculum and Instruction System … 67

Strand 2: Measurement

Standard M2.1: Understanding the basics of measurement; ability to measure and estimate the size
of objects to be measured
Grade-level indicators Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
1. Tell
• Length, weight, volume and •
capacity by using
nonstandard units of
measure
• Length in metres and •
centimetres, and compare
length by using the same
unit
• Length in metres, •
centimetres and millimetres
by using appropriate
measuring tools, and
compare length
• The relationship between •
measuring units for length,
weight, volume or capacity
and time
• The relationship between •
measuring units for length,
weight and volume or
capacity
• Explain a route or indicate •
positions of various objects
by specifying direction and
real distance from pictures,
maps and diagrams
2. Tell
• Period of time, number and •
names of days of the week
• Weight in kilogrammes and •
grammes, and compare
weight by using the same
unit
• Weight in kilogrammes and •
grammes by using
appropriate weighing
machine, and compare
weights
• Find area of rectangle •
(continued)
68 M. Inprasitha

(continued)
Grade-level indicators Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
• Find the perimeter of •
quadrilaterals and triangles
• Find the area of •
quadrilateral
3. Tell
• Volume and capacity in –
litres, and compare volume
and capacity
• Volume and capacity in •
litres and millilitres by
using appropriate
measuring tools, and
compare weight and
capacity by using the same
units
• The time on a clock dial; •
read and write the time by
using numerals; and tell
length of time
• Find the area of rectangles •
and triangles
• Find the circumference and •
area of circles
4. Estimate – – – –
• Length, weight and volume •
or capacity
• Measure the size of angle •
5. Find volume or capacity of – – – – • –
cuboids

Strand 2: Measurement

Standard M2.2: Solving measurement problems

Grade-level indicators Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
1. Solve problems involving –
measurement
• Length, weight, volume and •
money
(continued)
4 A New Model of Mathematics Curriculum and Instruction System … 69

(continued)
Grade-level indicators Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
• Length, weight, volume, •
money and time
• Area and perimeter of • •
quadrilaterals and triangles
• Area and perimeter of – •
quadrilaterals and circles
and volume and capacity of
cuboids
2. Read and keep record of – – • – – –
income and expenditure
3. Read and keep record of – – • – –
activities or events,
specifying the time
4. Draw diagrams showing – – – – – •
positions of various
objects and diagrams
showing travel routes

Strand 3: Geometry

Standard M3.1: Ability to explain and analyse two-dimensional and three-dimensional geometric
figures
Grade-level indicators Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
1. Geometric figures
• Distinguish triangles, •
quadrilaterals, circles and
ellipses
• Identify two-dimensional •
geometric figures whether
in the form of triangles,
quadrilaterals, circles or
ellipses
• Identify two-dimensional •
geometric figures that are
components of an object in
the form of a
three-dimensional
geometric figure
• Identify kind, name and •
components of angles and
write symbol
(continued)
70 M. Inprasitha

(continued)
Grade-level indicators Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
• Identify characteristics and •
differentiate between
various kinds of
three-dimensional
geometric figures
• Identify kinds of •
two-dimensional geometric
figures that are components
of three-dimensional
geometric figure
2. Two- and –
three-dimensional
geometric figures
• Identify three-dimensional •
figures whether in the form
of cuboids, spheres or
cylinders
• Identify two-dimensional •
geometric figures with axis
of symmetry from a given
figure
• Identify which pair of •
straight lines or parts of
straight lines form a
parallel, as well as use
symbols to indicate kind of
parallel
• Identify characteristics, •
relationship and
differentiate between
various kinds of
quadrilaterals
• Identify characteristics of •
diagonals in various kinds
of quadrilaterals
3. Various kinds of figures – –
• Distinguish between •
rectangles and cuboids, and
between circles and spheres
• Write linear points, straight •
lines, rays, parts of straight
lines, angles and symbols
• Identify components of a •
circle
(continued)
4 A New Model of Mathematics Curriculum and Instruction System … 71

(continued)
Grade-level indicators Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
• Identify characteristics, – •
components, relationships
and differentiate between
various kinds of triangles
4. Identify which figure or – – – • – –
which part of an object has
the form of a rectangle,
and can identify whether it
is a square or a rectangle

Strand 3: Geometry

Standard M3.2: Ability for visualization, spatial reasoning and application of geometric models for
problem-solving
Grade-level indicators Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
1. Geometric figures –
• Draw two-dimensional •
geometric figures by using
geometric models
• Draw two-dimensional •
geometric figures given in
various models
• Use geometric figures to •
create various design
• Construct angles by using a •
protractor
(continued)
72 M. Inprasitha

(continued)
Grade-level indicators Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
• Create cuboids, cylinders, •
cones, prisms and pyramids
from nets of
three-dimensional
geometric figures or
two-dimensional geometric
figures give
2. Various geometric figures – – –
• Identify various geometric •
figures in the surroundings
• Create rectangles, triangles •
and circles
• Construct various kinds of •
quadrilaterals
3. Create parallels by using a – – – – • –
set square

Strand Algebra

Standard M4.1: Understanding and ability to analyse pattern, relation and function
Grade-level indicators Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
1. Tell the numbers and
relations in patterns of
numbers
• That increases by 1 and 2 s, •
and decreases by 1 s
• That increases by 5, 10 and •
100 s, and decreases by 2,
10 and 100 s
• That increases by 3, 4, 25 •
and 50 s, and decreases by
3, 4, 5, 25 and 50 s and in
repeated patterns
(continued)
4 A New Model of Mathematics Curriculum and Instruction System … 73

(continued)
Grade-level indicators Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
• Which increases or •
decreases in equal amount
each time
• Given numbers •
• Solve problems involving •
pattern
2. Identify the forms and – –
relations in patterns in
• Which forms are related in •
one of the following
respects: shape, size or
colour
• Which forms are related in •
one of the following
respects: shape, size or
colour
• Which forms are related in •
two of the following
respects: shape, size or
colour
• Of a given form

Strand 4: Algebra

Standard M4.2: Ability to apply algebraic expressions, equations, inequalities, graphs and other
mathematical models to represent various situations, as well as interpretation and application for
problem-solving
Grade-level indicators Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
1. Write an equation based – – – – – •
on a situation or problem,
solve the equation and
check the answer
74 M. Inprasitha

Strand 5: Data Analysis and Probability

Standard M5.1: Understanding and ability to apply statistical methodology for data analysis
Grade-level indicators Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
1. Collect and categorize data – –
• About oneself and the •
surroundings in daily life
• About data •
• Draw bar charts with •
shortening of lines to
represent numbers
• Read data from line graphs •
and pie charts
2. Read data – –
• From simple pictograms •
and bar charts
• From pictograms, bar charts •
and tables
• From comparative bar •
charts
• From line graphs and pie •
charts
3. Draw
• Pictograms and bar charts •
• Bar charts with shortening •
of lines to represent
numbers
• Comparative bar charts and – – •
line graphs

Strand 5: Data Analysis and Probability

Standard M5.2: Application of statistical methodology and knowledge of probability for valid
estimation
Grade-level indicators Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
1. Can tell whether a – – – – • –
described situation:
– will definitely happen;
– may or may not happen;
– will definitely not happen
(continued)
4 A New Model of Mathematics Curriculum and Instruction System … 75

(continued)
Grade-level indicators Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
2. Explain events by using – – – – – •
terms with similar
meaning to:
– will definitely happen;
– may or may not happen;
– will definitely not happen

Strand 5: Data Analysis and Probability

Standard M5.3: Application of knowledge of statistics and probability for decision-making and
problem-solving
Grade-level indicators Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
– – – – – –

Strand 6: Mathematical Skills and Processes

Standard M6.1: Capacity for problem-solving, reasoning, and communication; communication and
presentation of mathematical concepts; linking various bodies of mathematical knowledge and
linking mathematics with other disciplines; and attaining ability for creative thinking
Grade-level indicators Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
1. Apply diverse methods for • • • • • •
problem-solving
2. Appropriately apply
• Mathematical knowledge, • • •
skills and processes for
problem-solving in various
situations
(continued)
76 M. Inprasitha

(continued)
Grade-level indicators Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
• Mathematical and • • •
technological knowledge,
skills and processes for
problem-solving in various
situations
3. Suitably provide reasoning • • • • • •
for decision-making and
appropriately present the
conclusions reached
4. Accurately use • • • • • •
mathematical language
and symbols for
communication of
concepts and presentation
5. Link various bodies of • • • • • •
mathematical knowledge,
and link mathematics with
other disciplines
6. Attain ability for creative • • • • • •
thinking
Extracted from the Basic Education Core Curriculum B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008), the Ministry of
Education, Thailand

References

Becker, J., & Shimada, S. (Eds.). (1997). The Open-Ended Approach: A new proposal for teaching
mathematics. Reston, Virginia: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Biehler, R., & Peter-Koop, A. (2008). The development of mathematics education as a scientific
discipline—Some reflections from a German perspective. Paper presented in symposium on the
occasion of the 100th anniversary of ICMI. Retrieved from https://www.unige.ch/math/EnsMath/
Rome2008/WG5/Papers/BIEPK.pdf.
Bonwell, C., & Eison, J. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom, 1991
ASHE-ERIC higher education reports. Washington, DC: The George Washington University.
Dale, E. (1969). Audiovisual methods in teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Dryden Press.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature
of intelligence (pp. 231–236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–develop-
mental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
Flavell, J. H. (1981). Cognitive monitoring. In W. P. Dickson (Ed.), Children’s oral communication
(pp. 35–60). New York: Academic Press.
Howson, G., Keitel, C., & Kilpatrick, J. (1981). Curriculum development in mathematics. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Inprasitha, M. (1997). Problem solving: A basis to reform mathematics instruction. Journal of the
National Research Council of Thailand, 29(2), 221–259.
Inprasitha, M. (2003). Reforming of the learning process in school mathematics: Emphasizing on
mathematical processes. Khon Kaen: Khon Kaen Karnpim (in Thai).
4 A New Model of Mathematics Curriculum and Instruction System … 77

Inprasitha, M. (2006). Open-ended approach and teacher education. Tsukuba Journal of Educational
Study in Mathematics, 25, 169–177.
Inprasitha, M. (2010). One feature of adaptive lesson study in Thailand—Designing learning unit.
In Proceedings of the 45th Korean National Meeting of Mathematics Education (pp. 193–206).
Gyeongju, Korea.
Inprasitha, M. (2013). Documentation for the curriculum reform and the textbook for basic education
commission—Mathematics framework on October 25–26, 2013 at Baan Amphawa Resort and
Spa, Samut Songkhram, Thailand (in Thai).
Inprasitha, M. (2015a). Preparing ground for the introduction of lesson study in Thailand. In M. Inpr-
asitha, M. Isoda, P. Wang-Iverson, & B. H. Yeap (Eds.), Lesson study: Challenges in mathematics
education (pp. 109–117). Singapore: World Scientific.
Inprasitha, M. (2015b). An open approach incorporating lesson study: An innovation for teaching
whole number arithmetic. In X. Sun, B. Kaur, & J. Novotna (Eds.), The Twenty-third ICMI Study:
Primary mathematics study on whole numbers (pp. 315–322). Macau, China: ICMI.
Inprasitha, M. (2015c). The reform of curriculum and instruction system: Focusing on curricu-
lum and evaluation. In Proceedings of the Korean Society of Mathematical Education 2015
International Conference on Mathematics Education (pp. 256–265), Seoul National University,
November 6–8, 2015.
Inprasitha, M. (2016). Japanese lesson study: How to transform education quality in Thailand.
Paper presented at a workshop on teaching for higher-order thinking in mathematics for Cambo-
dian teachers—Lesson study and open approach, National Institute of Education, Phnom Penh,
Cambodia.
Inprasitha, M. (2017). Open approach lesson study: An innovation for teaching mathematics to
support STEM. Paper presented at the international STEM education conference, Chiang Mai,
Thailand.
Kilpatrick, J. (2009). The mathematics teacher and curriculum change. PNA, 3(3), 107–121.
Ministry of Education, Thailand. (2001). The Basic Education Core Curriculum, B.E. 2544 (A.D.
2001). Bangkok: Religion Printing (in Thai).
Ministry of Education, Thailand. (2008). The Basic Education Core Curriculum, B.E. 2551 (A.D.
2008). Bangkok: Religion Printing (in Thai).
Ministry of Education, Thailand. (2017). The Basic Education Core Curriculum, B.E. 2551 (A.D.
2008) (revised in A.D. 2017). Bangkok: Religion Printing (in Thai).
Westbury, I., & Travers, K. (1990). Second international mathematics study: studies. Urbana, IL:
College of Education, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Maitree Inprasitha is Associate Professor of Mathematics Education and Director of the Center
for Research in Mathematics Education, Khon Kaen University. He is also Head of Research Unit
in Mathematics Education of the Centre of Excellence in Mathematics of Thailand. He is now
President of the Thailand Society of Mathematics Education (TSMEd). He is Pioneer in bringing
Lesson Study to continually improve teaching new school mathematics in Thailand for 15 years.
 Part II

Part II focuses on the curriculum development processes that Asian countries follow
when developing or redesigning their school mathematics curricula. The chapters
present curriculum materials for classroom use and how these are developed and
refined. These chapters showcase the Asian countries’ unique approaches to sup-
plementing school mathematics curricula.
Chapter 5
Incorporating National Assessment
into Curriculum Design and Instruction:
An Approach in Japan

Keiko Hino and Fumi Ginshima

Abstract This chapter describes an approach of incorporating research on student

learning into the process of designing the school mathematics curricula by examining
the case of national assessment in Japan. The curriculum design process consisted
of four phases: planning, implementing, assessing, and revising. Through the use
of one case study of the implementation of the National Assessment of Academic
Ability (NAAA), this chapter elucidates the method to incorporate the assessment
of students’ learning into the process of curriculum design.

5.1 Introduction

There is a large difference among countries in their ways of using research and
research results for the purpose of designing school mathematics curricula. The
ICME12 Survey Team 1 conducted a survey on the role of research in the design
of school mathematics curricula in eleven countries (Australia, Brazil, Egypt, Eng-
land, China, Honduras, Indonesia, Japan, Namibia, Peru, and six states in the United
States) (Burrill, Lappan, and Gonulates, 2013). According to the reports, one com-
mon response in the survey is the use of resources and information (e.g., curricu-
lum standards) in other countries. Another commonality is that the degree to which
research is used often depends on the visions, perspectives, and beliefs of the team
responsible for curriculum development.
On the other hand, use of research related to student learning in developing cur-
ricula was not so common among the countries surveyed. Even in the countries that
used research on student learning, the process was not necessarily well structured or
obstacles were encountered in the interpretation and use of research results. In the
ICME12 Survey Team 1 report, Burrill et al. point out that, although a great amount

K. Hino (B)
Utsunomiya University, Utsunomiya, Japan
e-mail: [email protected]
F. Ginshima
National Institute for Educational Policy and Research, Tokyo, Japan

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 81

C. P. Vistro-Yu and T. L. Toh (eds.), School Mathematics Curricula,
Mathematics Education – An Asian Perspective,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6312-2_5
82 K. Hino and F. Ginshima

of research has been accumulated, only a few countries claim that research plays a
substantial role in the design and monitoring of their curriculum development.
The purpose of this chapter is to describe an approach of incorporating research
related to student learning into the design process for school mathematics curricula by
examining the case of national assessment in Japan. In Japan, since 2007, the Ministry
of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) has administered
the National Assessment of Academic Ability (NAAA) to students in the sixth year
of elementary school and the third year of lower secondary school. In this chapter,
after describing our perspective on the design of school mathematics curricula, we
provide an overview of the implementation of NAAA in mathematics and examine
its products and future tasks. This case study is expected to inform the discussion
on how to incorporate research related to student learning into the developmental
process for school mathematics curricula.

5.2 Designing School Mathematics Curricula

Our perspective on designing school mathematics curricula draws on the curriculum

model of Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), which has
three aspects: the intended curriculum, the implemented curriculum, and the attained
curriculum. This conceptualization of curriculum was first developed for the Second
International Mathematics Study (Travers and Westbury, 1989) and has been used
until today. In TIMSS 2011, the designers describe the definition of curriculum and
the three aspects as follows:
Building on earlier IEA [International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement] studies of mathematics and science achievement, TIMSS uses the curricu-
lum, broadly defined, as the major organizing concept in considering how educational
opportunities are provided to students, and the factors that influence how students use these
opportunities. The TIMSS curriculum model has three aspects: the intended curriculum, the
implemented curriculum, and the achieved curriculum. These represent, respectively, the
mathematics and science that society intends for students to learn and how the education
system should be organized to facilitate this learning; what is actually taught in classrooms,
the characteristics of those teaching it, and how it is taught; and, finally, what it is that
students have learned, and what they think about these subjects. (Mullis, Martin, Ruddock,
O’Sullivan, and Preuschoff, 2009, p. 10)

In this chapter, we basically follow the definition of curriculum by Mullis et al.

(2009) and focus on the design of curriculum as a continual and multifaceted enter-
prise of managing the inspection and improvement of opportunities for students to
learn what the society intends for them to learn. Thus, we consider four phases of
the design process: planning, implementing, assessing, and revising. In the planning
phase, curricular documents are developed in which the expectations for students
to learn are clarified together with the ways of guiding this learning (the intended
curriculum). In the Implementing phase, the curricular documents and guides are
provided to teachers and the instruction is organized in schools and classrooms
5 Incorporating National Assessment into Curriculum Design … 83

(the implemented curriculum). In the assessing phase, the instructional approaches

by teachers and schools are evaluated from the viewpoints of what students have
learned and what factors are associated with their learning (the attained curricu-
lum). In the revising phase, the results obtained from the assessing phase are used
to improve opportunities for student learning by developing revised curricular doc-
uments. Figure 5.1 shows our framework on the process of curriculum design.
In the description of an implemented curriculum, Martin (1996) wrote, “Although
presumably inspired by the intended curriculum, the actual classroom events are
usually determined in large part by the classroom teacher, whose behavior may be
greatly influenced by his or her own education, training, and experience, by the nature
and organizational structure of the school, by interaction with teaching colleagues,
and by the composition of the student body” (p. 4). We also consider the crucial role
played by the teacher in every phase of the process of curriculum design. Without the
teacher’s effort of trying to provide students with better opportunities for learning, it
is impossible to realize such opportunities.
In our case study in this chapter, we pay attention to the phase of assessing the
curriculum. In particular, we describe how the data of the assessment are analyzed,
and the result is used to improve learning opportunities for students. Before delving
into the assessing phase, in the next section, we give a sketch of the process of
curriculum design in Japan.

Planning curriculum Revising curriculum

- Basic idea and policy - Basic idea and policy
- Goal, content, and standard - Goal, content, and standard
- Point of emphasis in instruction - Point of emphasis in instruction

Implementing curriculum
- Textbook and other materials
- Teacher’s knowledge, beliefs, and
practice
- Mathematics lesson

Assessing curriculum
- Student’s academic ability
- Teacher’s knowledge, beliefs, and practice
- Environment for learning

Fig. 5.1 A framework on the process of curriculum design

84 K. Hino and F. Ginshima

5.3 Designing a School Mathematics Curriculum in Japan

5.3.1 Planning and Implementing the Japanese Course

of Study

In Japan, the national curriculum, or Course of Study (CS), has been revised almost
once in every 10 years after World War II. In the revision of the CS, the Minister
of Education requires discussion and reports to the Central Council of Education
Committee. The final report assesses the direction of future generations to orga-
nize a new curriculum. In response to the report, a team of diverse professionals
engaged in mathematics education designs the goals and content standards of the
school mathematics curriculum. The team includes university researchers majoring
in mathematics and mathematics education, staff from MEXT, supervisors or super-
intendents in the local boards of education, and schoolteachers. A “Teaching Guide”
is also provided as an explanation of the CS in more detail.
The most recent revisions to the CS for elementary and junior high schools were
in March 2008 and for high school and special needs education in March 2009. The
CS in mathematics has been totally implemented since 2011 in elementary schools
and 2012 in junior high and high schools, after passing the transitional period of
partial implementation (MEXT, 2008c). In the CS, the objectives of mathematics
instruction in elementary school are stated as follows:
Through mathematical activities students will: (1) acquire basic and fundamental knowledge
and skills about numbers, quantities, and geometric figures; (2) cultivate their ability to
consider phenomena from their daily lives with foresight to generate and organize logical
thinking steps to follow through, and to represent those phenomena; (3) recognize the joy
of mathematical activities and the merits of mathematical manipulation; and (4) foster a
disposition to willingly make use of mathematics in daily life and studies. (MEXT, 2008a,
p. 8)

The objectives of mathematics instruction in junior high school and high school are
consistent with those in elementary school. The Teaching Guide states the ideas and
policies behind these objectives. They include the following:
– To firmly establish the fundamental and basic knowledge and skills of numbers,
quantities, and geometrical figures in students, while retaining the importance of
a systematic nature of mathematics, the curriculum may adopt repeated learning
(spiral) according to developmental stages and grade levels of students by over-
lapping some of the content across grades,
– We enrich the teaching where students are taught to think systematically, in logical
steps, by reasoning, and to understand the connections among words, numbers,
algebraic expressions, figures, tables, and graphs; and teaching where students
learn how to explain their ideas clearly and how to express and communicate their
ideas to others,
– To motivate students to learn mathematics and experience the meaning of learn-
ing and utilize what was learned, the following objectives are emphasized: Help
5 Incorporating National Assessment into Curriculum Design … 85

students feel progress in learning; Help students apply what has been learned to
activities in daily life, to the study of other subjects and to learning more advanced
mathematics; and Help students feel progress in learning, such as a depth and
broadening of understanding through repeated learning,
– Mathematical activities play an important role in helping students acquire fun-
damental and basic knowledge and skills, in increasing students’ ability to think
and express mathematically, and in enabling students to feel a joy and purpose in
learning mathematics. To enrich the teaching of mathematics through mathemati-
cal activities—with experiential activities and an emphasis on language—concrete
examples of mathematical activities should be provided in the curriculum (MEXT,
2008b, pp. 3–4).
Once the new CS is determined, it is transmitted to schoolteachers by the top-
down system. Schools base their curricula on the CS and the Teaching Guide, and
implement their curricula in the classroom. Textbooks are edited according to the
curriculum standards. MEXT reviews textbooks for standard adherence before they
are released to the schools. When a school develops a curriculum, teachers also refer
to teaching plans provided by textbook companies (see Hino (2011) for more detail).

5.3.2 Assessing the CS

In the evaluation of the CS, the results of various assessments are used. Japan has
participated in the international mathematics assessments TIMSS and Programme
for International Student Assessment (PISA). The results of these assessments are
reviewed and used as important information to examine the validity of Japan’s cur-
riculum in comparison with other participating countries. In fact, the results influ-
enced the current CS revision. Setting the aim of mathematics education that stresses
students’ abilities to express their thinking and utilize mathematics in daily/social
life is a direct result of international assessments. In the CS for junior high schools,
a new curricular content area “Use of Data” was added in order to enrich the con-
tent of statistics in compulsory education. Statistics became a requirement in high
schools. The emphasis on statistics is also a reflection of international mathematics
assessments.
In line with international mathematics assessments, Japan has been conducting
several large-scale assessments within the country. Since the 1980s, three types of
large-scale assessment have been conducted: The Assessment of Implementation of
Curriculum, The Assessment of Specific Issues in Education, and the NAAA. These
assessments have different aims and methodologies, as shown in Table 5.1 (Ginshima,
2010, p. 151, revised). The NAAA, the focus of this chapter, commenced in 2007
and has been conducted every year to assess the status quo of students in terms of
their academic ability. Its assessment framework was developed when the revision
was underway. (NAAA was not implemented in 2011 because of the East Japan
earthquake disaster, but the problem booklets were distributed to schools.)
86 K. Hino and F. Ginshima

Table 5.1 Large-scale assessment of education in Japan for elementary and junior high school
students since the 1980s
Title The National The Assessment of The Assessment of
Assessment of Implementation of Specific Issues of
Academic Ability Course of Study Education
Aim Review the Collect data for revising Collect data on specific
achievement and issues curricula and improving issues of education
of education ways of instruction
Grades/survey Grades 6, 9 Grades 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Depends on the subject
method Complete (2007–2009, Sampling Sampling
2013–)
Sampling (2010, 2012)
Subject Japanese/Mathematics Japanese/Social stud- Japanese/Mathematics
ies/Mathematics/Science (’04)
(English: Only for Junior Science/English (’05)
High)
Date Every April since 2007 Prior to revising the Every year since 2004
curriculum, and after the
new curriculum is
implemented

5.4 Implementation of the NAAA

5.4.1 Aim of the Assessment

The NAAA’s aim is stated as follows (MEXT, 2013a):

From the viewpoint of equity of compulsory education and of preservation and enhancement
of the quality of compulsory education, to grasp/analyze the states of students’ academic
ability and learning all over Japan, to inspect the results and tasks of educational policy, and
to plan its improvement, on the one hand, and through which, to establish the continuous
cycle of inspection and improvement with respect to education, on the other hand, as well
as, to serve for the enrichment of teaching and improvement of the situation of students’
learning in school.

In the report by the committee on the development of this assessment (Expert

Committee on the Method of Implementation of National Assessment of Academic
Ability, 2006), the following issues were addressed to be tackled by the development
of NAAA:
We need to establish a method of management to engage in a continuous improvement in
the field of education. Specifically, we need a procedure of conducting the four stages, i.e.,
Plan, Do, Check, and Action (PDCA), in the PDCA cycle and connecting the last stage of
Action to the next Plan.
5 Incorporating National Assessment into Curriculum Design … 87

At the national level, we need to grasp the current situation of the quality of education in
considerable detail, including whether the equity and quality of compulsory education is
achieved in every local area in Japan.
In addition, at the national level, we need to inspect educational maintenance from different
angles, such as students’ attitudes toward learning, situation of the school environment for
learning and teaching, or students’ lifestyles, and to offer implications for improvement.
Furthermore, we need to connect the results of examination with the re-examination of
current approaches and with the development of new policy.

The report repeatedly pointed out two indispensable components (grasping the cur-
rent situation and collection of evidence of high quality) for the purposes of re-
examination and formulating a new proposal of educational enterprise, which is
consistent with the effort of implementation and revision of the CS.

5.4.2 Content of the Assessment

The implementation methods and content of this assessment are discussed and
decided by an expert review committee. The main content consists of assessment of
the school subjects and the questionnaires. In the former, students are given problem
booklets and asked to solve the problems. In the latter, questionnaires are prepared
both for students (student questionnaires) and for schools (school questionnaires).
In 2013, besides main content, several additional surveys were conducted, which
included questionnaires for parents and for the local boards of education.
School subjects to be assessed are Japanese and mathematics (science was also
assessed in 2012 and 2015). The assessment of student’s academic ability is com-
posed of two types of problems:
Problems that are oriented to “Knowledge” (called Type A problems)
Problems that are oriented to “Application” (called Type B problems).
Type A problem items measure students’ basic knowledge and skills. Here basic
knowledge and skills mean content that will impede the learning of content in later
grade levels and so on if it is not acquired, or knowledge and skills that are indis-
pensable for everyday life and, therefore, are desirable to be able to use whenever
necessary. Type B problem items measure students’ ability to utilize knowledge and
skills to solve problems in everyday life. They also measure students’ ability to
develop plans for solving various problems, to carry out these plans, and to evalu-
ate and improve the plans. Each item is either a multiple-choice item, short-response
item, or constructed-response item. All items were developed based on the objectives
of the new CS.
The student questionnaire asks the students about their motivation toward learning,
method of learning, learning environment, and various aspects of their daily life. The
school questionnaire asks schools about their efforts on the method of teaching and
maintenance of the situations from the viewpoint of human and physical conditions
of education.
88 K. Hino and F. Ginshima

5.4.3 Method of Implementation

Students are assessed in the sixth year of elementary school and the third year of
junior high school. Two survey methods are employed according to each year: (1)
Complete count survey (about 1.1 million participants in both the sixth year of
elementary school and the third year of junior high school), and (2) Sampling count
survey (0.3 and 0.45 million participants in the sixth year of elementary school and
the third year of junior high school, respectively). Since 2013, the complete count
survey method has been employed. The participation rate is usually nearly 100% in
both national and public schools and about 50% in private schools.
All of the content described above is implemented for students every April. In
elementary schools, one class hour (45 min) is spent on Type A problems, which
include both Japanese and mathematics, and one class hour is spent on Type B
problems that also include both Japanese and mathematics. In junior high schools,
one class hour (50 min) is spent on each of Japanese and mathematics for both
types of problems. The time for the student questionnaire is set depending on the
circumstances of each school.

5.4.4 Examples of Problem Items in Mathematics

All of the problems are publicized. We will offer examples of problem items below.
5 Incorporating National Assessment into Curriculum Design … 89

■Junior high school, Type A (Item A ７, 2008)

A quadrilateral becomes a parallelogram when the sides in opposition to each other are parallel and they have an
equal length. Express the underlined part by using the sides of a quadrilateral ABCD in the figure below and the
symbols “∥” and “=”.
90 K. Hino and F. Ginshima
5 Incorporating National Assessment into Curriculum Design … 91

5.4.4.1 Data Analysis

All of the data and results of analysis are available online at http://www.nier.go.jp/
kaihatsu/zenkokugakuryoku.html. For each of the Type A and Type B problems,
basic statistical data are presented, such as the mean percentage of correct answers
or mode, median, and standard distribution of correct answers. Graphical represen-
tations such as a distribution curve or cumulative curve are presented. Statistical
data are also presented according to the content areas in CS (number and calcula-
tion, quantity and measurement, geometrical figure, and quantitative relationship), to
the criteria of evaluation (interest and motivation, mathematical thinking, skill, and
meaning and understanding), and to the types of questions (multiple-choice item,
short-response item, and constructed-response item). For each problem item, the
percentage of correct answers and percentage of non-responses are calculated and
presented. Regarding the questionnaire, the results of the distribution are presented
in the form of a column graph for each question. The change of distribution over the
years is also visualized for each question.
In the same way as our previous large-scale assessments, students’ responses for
mathematics problems are analyzed by following the scheme of anticipated types of
responses. This analysis is conducted for each of the problems, including both the
Type A and Type B problems. This is one of the features of NAAA because, on the
basis of the examination of the tendency of students’ responses by using the results
of percentages for each type, both students’ difficulty and the points that deserve
teachers’ attention in their teaching are pointed out. Table 5.2 is an example of the
scheme of anticipated types of responses together with the percentage of students’
actual responses to Item B (3), 2009, one of the sample problems presented in
Sect. 4.4.
The purpose of this item is to assess whether students can decide the sizes of
proportion on the basis of the total weights and the weights of plastic bottle collected
in April and June, and whether they can describe reasons of their decisions by using
words and sentences as well as mathematical expressions. As Table 5.2 shows, the
percentage of correct answer was very low (17.9%). The conditions of correct answers
indicate that students are required to explain their reasons by either stating all three
types of content, i.e., (1) total weight (base quantity), (2) weight of plastic bottles
(compared quantity), and (3) relationship among proportion, compared quantity, and
base quantity; or stating mathematical expressions for finding the proportions in April
and June. When responses that were not counted as correct answers were examined, it
was found that 42.9% of students chose Number 2 as their answer. Among them, there
were students who decided that the proportions are the same because the weights
of the plastic bottles are the same in April and June. On the other hand, there were
students who stated only the base quantity (total weight) or the compared quantity
(weight of plastic bottles), although they chose Number 1 as their answer (3.8%).
These analyses are followed by suggestions to teachers for teaching proportion in
their classrooms. They include examples of activities so that students can understand
that proportion is related to two quantities (base quantity and compared quantity).
92 K. Hino and F. Ginshima

Table 5.2 A scheme of anticipated types of responses together with the percentage of students’
actual responses to Item B (3), 2009 (NIER, 2009b, p. 279)

Item number Type of response Percentage of Correct answer

response
(3) (Condition of correct answer)
Choose “1” and either describe all of
the ➀, ➁, and ➂ or describe ➃ below
– The total weight (base quantity) in
April is smaller than the total
weight in June
– The weights of plastic bottles
(compared quantity) are the same
in April and June
– The relationship among
proportion, compared quantity and
base quantity
– Either the proportion of the weight
of plastic bottles in April and in
June, or the equation of finding the
proportions of the weight of
plastic bottles in April and in June
(Example of correct answer)
• [Number] 1
[Reason] The proportion of the
weight of plastic bottles can be
found by “weight of plastic bottles ÷
total weight.” The weights of plastic
bottles are the same in April and
June, but the total weight in April is
smaller than in June. So, the
proportion of the weight of plastic
bottle is larger in April
Number Reason
1 Choose Describe ➀, ➁, ➂, 14.7 ◎
1 and ➃
Describe ➀, ➁, and
➂
Describe ➀, ➁, and
➃
Describe ➀, ➂, and
➃
Describe ➁, ➂, and
➃
Describe ➀ and ➃
Describe ➁ and ➃
Describe ➂ and ➃
Describe ➃
(continued)
5 Incorporating National Assessment into Curriculum Design … 93

Table 5.2 (continued)

Item number Type of response Percentage of Correct answer
response
2 Describe ➀ and ➁ 3.3 ◯
3 Describe ➀ and ➂ 3.8
Describe ➁ and ➂
Describe ➀
Describe ➁
4 Other than types 1, 9.3
2, or 3
Non-response
5 Choose 2 42.9
6 Choose Responses such as 1.6
3 calculating or
deciding by using
“base quantity ÷
compared quantity”
7 Describe ➀ and ➁ 2.6
Describe ➀
8 Other than the types 13.5
6 and 7
Non-response
9 Other responses 0.8
0 Non-response 7.5
Percentage of correct answer 17.9

Another feature of the analysis in NAAA is the examination of the relationship

between the results of the questionnaire and the results of the assessment by the Type
A and Type B problems. By drawing on the results of this cross-sectional analysis, it is
possible to delineate the relationship between the students’ learning environment and
their academic ability. For example, Table 5.3 shows the results of analysis between
the question on “students’ opportunity to present their thinking in the classroom,” on
the one hand, and the assessment of the Type A and Type B problems, on the other
hand. The results of assessment are presented according to the quartile method.
As we describe in Sect. 5.5, these results of cross-sectional analysis are also used
in various related surveys by MEXT.
94 K. Hino and F. Ginshima

Table 5.3 An example of analysis comparing the results of the questionnaire and the results of
assessment (MEXT, 2010)
Results of assessment (%) Total (%) Answer choice (%)
1 2 3 4
(positive) (negative)
Type A problems
75–100 29.3 32.0 45.1 17.9 4.9
50–75 23.8 29.6 46.5 18.8 5.0
25–50 24.4 26.9 46.1 21.0 5.9
0–25 22.6 21.8 39.9 25.4 12.4
Type B problems
75–100 25.5 32.0 45.4 17.7 4.8
50–75 30.8 30.0 46.8 18.5 4.5
25–50 22.7 26.4 45.7 21.5 6.3
0–25 21.1 21.5 38.7 25.9 13.3
Question: Do you think that you are given the opportunity to present your thinking in ordinary
lessons? (1: Very positive,2: Positive,3: Negative,4: Very negative)

5.5 Use of NAAA Results in the Design Process of School

Mathematics Curricula

5.5.1 Reporting the Results and Trials of Improvement

of Academic Ability

The NAAA’s aim is not only to assess the status quo of students but also to give feed-
back to teachers. Therefore, the report of the results of NAAA each year not only
gives numerical data with respect to correct answers, but also provides a detailed
analysis of students’ responses, including the mistakes they made. The report pro-
vides explanations and examples of mathematical activities related to how to improve
instructional practices on the basis of the analysis of students’ responses.
The prefectural and municipal boards of education are informed of the results of
schools they are in charge of. The results of the school as a whole and the results
of individual students are sent to each participating school. All of these results are
expected to be used as useful feedback to teachers and schools. In order to facilitate
the feedback, the National Institute for Educational Policy and Research (NIER)
publicize online the examples of effective trials by schools to improve their students’
academic abilities by using the results of NAAA (NIER, 2013a). The examples
include schools in which the results of NAAA show improvement over these years
and schools in which the students had high scores on Type B problems.
For instance, in one elementary school (210 children and 23 teachers and staff
members), in 2007, the mean percentages of correct answers were lower than national
5 Incorporating National Assessment into Curriculum Design … 95

means in both Type A and Type B problems. The school began the approach of reex-
amining and improving children’s everyday lifestyles and attitudes toward learning.
As a result, the children’s scores on these problems increased in later years. In another
elementary school with 480 and 38 teachers and staff members, respectively, more
than 20% of the children receive financial support to attend the school. However, the
mean percentage of correct answers to Type B problems, especially to the descrip-
tion type problems, is much higher than the national mean, and the percentages of
non-responses are smaller. In this school, teachers organize mathematics lessons by
dividing the whole class into small groups of children. They reorganize the small
groups several times by assessing their performance during the teaching of one text-
book chapter. In the teaching with small groups of children, teachers develop their
original worksheets in which the children are asked not only to write the answers
and procedures but also to write the reasons for the procedure. In the lesson, teachers
provide time for the children to exchange their opinions on a daily basis. Further, the
teachers cooperate with the children’s families and create steady support for them to
enhance the children’s learning at home. These examples are expected to offer useful
information for teachers all over Japan to examine the results of NAAA and to plan
strategies for the improvement of students’ academic abilities in their own schools.

5.5.2 Suggestions for Teaching and Lessons: Providing Ideas

and Examples of Mathematics Lessons

Each year, besides the reports of the results of NAAA, NIER develops a guide of
NAAA that explains the purposes of each individual problem item in detail and pro-
vides examples of ideas for teaching mathematics lessons by using the problem items.
Regarding the examples of ideas, the problem items in which the mean percentages
are low are selected. It is considered that teachers can make use of the problems in
NAAA in their daily lessons.
In 2012, NIER published a report that summarized the results of NAAA in these
four years (NIER, 2012). In the report, the results of NAAA are summarized for
elementary school and junior high school as two separate volumes. The report gives
a summary on the results of NAAA that can be considered as successful achievement
by students on the one hand and that address difficulty for students on the other hand.
With respect to the difficulty, the report explains it in detail by drawing on the results
for specific problem items, and moreover, it gives important points to be considered
when teaching as well as concrete ideas and examples to be applied in lessons. This
report is also expected to help teachers improve their teaching by using the results
of NAAA. Table 5.4 shows part of the lists of successful achievements and points of
difficulty reported in the elementary school volume.
Figure 5.2 shows an example of a lesson that deals with the difficulty observed in
responses to the problem of the weight of plastic bottles described in Sects. 4.4 and
4.5 (Item B (3), 2009).
96 K. Hino and F. Ginshima

4 -② Quantitative relationship
Example of an idea for lesson ⑨
- To decide the size of proportion by considering both “base quantity” and “compared quantity” [Target grade
level: Grade 5 or higher]
[Objective of instruction]
Children learn to decide the size of proportion by considering both “base quantity” and “compared quantity.”

[Example of an idea for the lesson] Major learning content

To recognize that the
(1) Which proportion of the
Total numbers are the same. base quantity is the
number of girls is larger,
that of School A or School same and the compared
B? The proportion is larger when the quantities are different.
number
number of girls is bigger. To make sure that the
proportion is larger
boy Since total number is 100, when the compared
girl School A is 40% and School quantity is bigger, when
B is 60%. The proportion of the base quantity is the
girls is larger in School B. same, and when the
compared quantities are
different.
(2) Which proportion of the This time, the To recognize from the
number of girls is larger, Teacher numbers of girls is graph that the
School A or School C? the same.
compared quantity is
I think the proportions the same and the base
are the same because the quantities are different.
boy numbers of girls are the To compare the
same.
girl proportions by
calculating and finding

Total number in School it or by expressing it on

C is 80, and the number the number line.
of girls is a half. The To recognize that in the
proportion of number of case of different base
girls is 50%. quantities, the
proportions are not the
If we express them by the same even if the
number line, it shows that the compared quantity is
proportion of number of girls number the same.
is larger in School C. proportion

Since total numbers are different, the proportions are not the
same even though the number of girls is the same.

(3) Let’s write on your notebook what you found from (1) and (2).
To summarize what is
found in the notebook.
Findings
When the total number is different, the proportions are not the same
even though the number of girls is the same.
When we compare the proportions of the numbers of girls, we need to
look at not only the number of girls but also total number.

Fig. 5.2 An example of an idea for a lesson (NIER, 2009a, p. 10)

5 Incorporating National Assessment into Curriculum Design … 97

From now on, I will be careful when I look into percent from the
data.

[Points of attention]
By dealing with a problem of judging the size of proportion, and by incorporating the activities, such as
finding proportion in the way of calculation, expressing proportion on the number line, or drawing a circle
graph, into the lesson, we establish students’ solid understanding of proportion, namely, that the size of
proportion is determined by both the base quantity and the compared quantity.

Fig. 5.2 (continued)

5.5.3 Use of the Results in Studies on the Improvement

of Learning Environments

The results of NAAA are used in some of the related study projects by MEXT that aim
at the improvement of learning environments. Some of the projects have conducted
additional analysis by using the data of NAAA from 2007 to 2008. Projects were
conducted by different institutions or organizations. MEXT publicizes the reports of
these projects online, which include the following:
– Analysis of various aspects of students’ daily life
– Analysis from the perspective of teaching by streaming/tracking
– Analysis of the instructional methods from the perspective of the layer of academic
ability
– Analysis of the relationship between students’ academic ability/learning habit and
the instructional practice in school

Table 5.4 Successful achievement and points of difficulty observed in Type A problems in ele-
mentary school (NIER, 2012, p. 24 and p. 26)
Successful achievement Points of difficulty
Number and calculation Number and calculation
• Carrying out addition, subtraction, • Understanding the meaning of
multiplication, and division with whole multiplication and division
numbers, decimal numbers, and fractions Quantity and measurement
• Understanding the meaning and expression • Choosing necessary information (lengths
of fractions and properties of the geometrical figure) for
Quantity and measurement finding the area and carrying out the
• Finding the size of an angle calculation
・Finding the area of geometrical figures Geometrical figures
• Making decisions on the phenomenon on
the basis of properties of geometrical figures
Quantitative relationship
• Understanding rules on the order of
calculation
• Understanding the meaning of proportion
98 K. Hino and F. Ginshima

MEXT stresses the dissemination of technology and investigates the present situ-
ation of the use of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) as well as the
relationship between ICT use and students’ learning and academic ability. Here, the
results of NAAA are also used. For example, in 2009, a case study was conducted with
a focus on schools with comparatively higher levels of maintenance of ICT (e.g., Pro-
jector, OverHead Camshaft (OHC), Interactive Whiteboard) (Research Committee
on the Relationship between ICT Use and Academic Ability and Situation of Learn-
ing, 2009). It was found that the mean percentage of questions answered correctly on
the NAAA was higher in students that used ICT almost daily. It was also found that
there was no significant relationship between the use of an Interactive Whiteboard
and students’ academic ability. Furthermore, even in the area where advanced ICT
maintenance is provided, there are schools that responded, “We hardly or did not use
ICT in the classrooms.” In these schools, the mean percentage of correct answers on
the NAAA was lower.

5.5.4 Influence on Textbooks

The newest versions of school textbooks were released along with the implementation
of CS. An examination of textbooks by different companies showed that the results
of the NAAA are reflected in the pages and that the problems similar to the problem
items are included. For example, problems that ask students to state the reason for
their answer and to choose information necessary to find the answer from multiple
sources of data or figures are included. Some textbooks also use NAAA problems,
especially the Type B problems, as exercises.

5.6 Impact and Future Task

5.6.1 Impact of NAAA on the Process of Curriculum Design

As described in Sect. 3.2, MEXT has been conducting different large-scale assess-
ments, reporting the results, and proposing instructional implications. Nevertheless,
NAAA is unique in the sense that its planning started at the same time that the idea of
a new CS was discussed in the Central Council of Education Committee. Therefore,
this assessment is incorporated into the process of curriculum design, which includes
planning, implementation, and assessment, at a scale without precedent in Japanese
large-scale assessments. By the continual operation of NAAA, we came to notice
several impacts of NAAA on teachers and curricula.
The first impact of NAAA is that through the effort of reporting the results and
making feedback to teachers, part of which are described in Sect. 5.4, teachers are
given the opportunities to understand the idea of the new CS and the concrete image
5 Incorporating National Assessment into Curriculum Design … 99

of academic ability to be achieved among the students. The growth of interests and
motivations with respect to the improvement of students’ academic ability can be
seen in the number of schools that ask for the problem booklets even though they
are not chosen as participants in the year of NAAA, by adopting the sampling count
survey. For example, in 2012, about 70% of non-participating schools asked for the
problem booklets to assess students in their schools by themselves. This suggests
that teachers try to use the information on their students’ academic ability in their
own efforts to improve the learning environments of their schools. The results show
that percentages of correct answers became closer among the participating schools
(e.g., NIER, 2013b). These observations imply the dissimilation of the idea of a new
CS and the vital role of NAAA as a vehicle.
Second, there is a growing interest and motivation among teachers toward aca-
demic ability in utilizing learned content in everyday situations and so on. This
academic ability of “application” is assessed in Type B problems. One observation is
the increase of positive responses to questions in the school questionnaire that relate
to the teaching practices for the aspect of “application” in the academic ability. For
example, the “strongly agree” response to the question, “Did you ask questions or
teach students so as to elicit multiple ideas or deepen their thinking in the lesson?”
has been increasing gradually from 2008 to 2016 both in elementary schools (from
29 to 34%) and in junior high schools (from 18 to 27%) (NIER, 2016). As an exam-
ple of data from other sources, a survey of elementary school teachers concerning
their conception of mathematics and mathematics teaching, by the Japan Society of
Mathematical Education, shows that the percentage of teachers who responded that
they changed their mathematics teaching in accordance with the new CS was larger
(42%) than the percentage who said that they did not (37%) (Japan Society of Math-
ematical Education, 2011). Sixty-one percent of those teachers who responded that
they changed their mathematics teaching chose the answer “Incorporate the activity
of discussion” in the multiple-choice question that followed. In the Type B problems,
students’ ability to explain their reasoning is one of the targets of the assessment.
Since the weakness of students in explaining detail enough to be able to convey
information to other people is recognized repeatedly in various reports of NAAA,
teachers seem to be well aware of the necessity of improving their teaching in that
direction. Moreover, the prevalence of research topics such as “verbal activity” or
“utilization of mathematics in everyday life” in the various lesson study groups and
conferences that are devoted to the activity of utilization of mathematical content and
to the activity of discussion in the classroom can be considered as further evidence
of the rise of teachers’ interests in academic ability.
Third, through the detailed analysis of data including the mistakes students made
together with the summary of the results over the years, the NAAA provides evidence
of high quality that can be used to begin discussion toward the next revision of CS. In
particular, children’s difficulties in the learning of mathematics became clearer by the
summary of accumulated results. For example, children’s difficulty in the concept of
proportion has been reported since the first year of the NAAA. Several researchers
have made an intensive analysis of those results and revealed that children’s mis-
conceptions regarding multiplication and division are closely connected with the
100 K. Hino and F. Ginshima

difficulty level or that children have much more difficulty in developing extended
explanations of their reasoning concerning proportion than in making immediate
(instinctive) decisions on proportional situations (Tabata, 2012; Ginshima, 2012).
These analyses clarify the problem of children’s weakness of related concepts and
their weakness of thinking and language skills that need to be fostered in the long
term. In this regard, we need to examine the curricular content and the sequence
of content within and across grade levels. Owing to the accumulation of evidence
with high quality, it is possible to discuss extensively what content we teach stu-
dents sequentially and continuously and how to use research results that have been
collected by different researchers.

5.6.2 Future Task

On the other hand, the implementation of NAAA addresses several issues. One of
the issues is the problem of deviation from the authentic academic ability that the
CS aims at. This happens because academic ability is evaluated by the correctness of
responses to the problem items. There is a danger that having students give correct
answers becomes the sole goal of schools and students themselves. In order to manage
this problem, MEXT, NIER, or the local board of education repeatedly hold lectures
and workshops in different places in Japan, in which the aim of NAAA is explained
and the dissemination of the ideas of a new CS is promoted. In addition, several
committees, such as the Inspection and Improvement Committee (Kensho Kaizen
Iinkai) (MEXT, 2013b), are organized in local governments in order to create a system
of collaboratively enhancing the quality of education in local areas, not leaving
everything to individual schools.
Another issue is the excessive focus by the mass media on the ranking of scores by
prefectures and the change of rankings across the years. These superfluous interests
and reports by newspaper and journalism have the risk of increasing the school’s
obsession with ranking or of arousing rivalry among the schools and prefectures.
Furthermore, how to spread the necessity of discussion from a broad perspective
is an issue to be addressed. NAAA assesses only two or three school subjects. It
measures a very limited situation of students’ academic ability. We also need to pay
enough attention to the learning of other school subjects, and in fact, there are various
activities in schools that aim at improving the instructional practices of those school
subjects. It is also important to know the existence of activities outside schools, for
example, homes and local areas. We need to recognize the significance of all these
approaches. It is necessary for us to make steady efforts on the instructional practice
in daily lessons, preserving calmness and a clear vision, so as not to be prepossessed
with a biased idea on academic ability.
5 Incorporating National Assessment into Curriculum Design … 101

5.7 Concluding Remarks

In this chapter, we described the NAAA in Japan as an example of a large-scale

assessment that can be used to evaluate and design curricula and instruction. NAAA
was developed by the need to establish a PDCA cycle in the field of education to
carry out a reform of compulsory education in Japan. As described in the preceding
sections, NAAA offers rich information on students’ academic ability from multiple
angles. The data are analyzed in detail, and furthermore, the results are communicated
with local boards of education, schools, and teachers by various reports and examples,
which are also made public on a website.
NAAA can be said to make three important contributions to the design process
of curricula and instruction. First, it contributes to the dissemination of the idea of a
new CS. In Japan, the curriculum is implemented by a top-down educational system
from MEXT to every school. In this regard, the curriculum offered to students strictly
follows the CS. However, the problem is the difficulty of conveying fundamental ideas
and pictures (images) behind the CS to teachers. NAAA provides a concrete image
of academic ability that our country aims at by including various problem items in
the booklets. By assessing students and by giving feedback to teachers through the
problem items, NAAA communicates the ideas of the new CS with teachers all over
Japan. Second, NAAA contributes to providing a means of assessing and generating
feedback on students’ current academic ability. Especially, it offers detailed criteria
of assessment and develops methods of using them to re-examine and improve the
approaches taken by schools and teachers. No precedent large-scale assessment in
Japan has developed such various reports as NAAA, which may manifest national
responsibility for the inspection and improvement of educational activities. Third,
NAAA contributes to the discussion on the next revision of the CS by providing
evidence of high quality. Through a detailed analysis of students’ mistakes within
the problem items as well as between items, it clarifies the problem of children’s
weakness of related concepts and their weakness of thinking and language skills.
The results will supply rich evidence-based information to propose new perspectives
in the next CS. Figure 5.3 shows these three contributions to the curriculum design
presented in Sect. 5.2.
This chapter is devoted to only one case study. Nevertheless, it offers a useful
example of the method to incorporate the assessment of students’ learning into the
process of curriculum design.
Note
Part of this chapter was presented as a poster presentation in The 13th International
Congress on Mathematical Education, University of Hamburg, Germany. [Ginshima,
F. & Hino, K. (2016). Contribution of assessment to the process of curriculum design:
An experience in Japan].
102 K. Hino and F. Ginshima

Planning curriculum (Present CS) Revising curriculum (Next CS)

Dissemination of the idea

Addressing important issues
Implementing curriculum

Feedback to instruction

Assessing curriculum (NAAA)

Fig. 5.3 Three contributions of NAAA to the process of curriculum design

References

Burrill, G., Lappan, G., Gonulates, F. (2013). Curriculum and the role of research: Report of the
ICME 12 Survey Team. Paper prepared for a report for the ICME Proceedings, 8 July–15 July
2012, COEX, Seoul, Korea.
Expert Committee on the method of implementation of national assessment of academic ability.
(2006). Report on the concrete method of implementing national assessment of academic ability.
Available online at http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/gakuryoku-chousa/toushin/07032815.
htm (in Japanese).
Ginshima, F. (2010). The National Assessment of Academic Ability: In the case of elementary
school. Journal of Japan Society of Mathematical Education, 59(6), 150–151.
Ginshima, F. (2012). Setting issues for research from the perspective of the results of assessment:
Focusing on problem items related to proportion. In Proceedings of the 45th Conference on
Japan Society of Mathematical Education (Vol. 1, pp. 51–54). November 10–11, Nara University
of Education. (in Japanese).
Hino, K. (2011). Relationship between research and curriculum design in Japan: A response to the
survey questions. Unpublished manuscript.
Japan Society of Mathematical Education. (2011). Awareness of teachers on elementary math-
ematics: With the revision of Course of Study. Japan Society of Mathematical Education. (in
Japanese).
Martin, M. O. (1996). Third international mathematics and science study: An overview. In M.
O. Martin & D. L. Kelly (Eds.), Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)
Technical Report, Volume I: Design and Development. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
MEXT. (2008a). Elementary school teaching guide for the Japanese course of study: Mathematics.
(English translation was carried out by the Asia-Pacific Mathematics and Science Education
Collaborative at DePaul University in Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A., under contract from the U.S.
Department of Education).
MEXT. (2008b). Junior high school teaching guide for the Japanese course of study: Mathematics.
(English translation was carried out by the Center for Research on International Cooperation in
Educational Development, University of Tsukuba, Japan).
MEXT. (2008c). Japanese Course of Study: Mathematics. (in Japanese).
MEXT. (2010). Results of the questionnaire 2010, Junior high school. Available online at http://
www.nier.go.jp/10chousakekkahoukoku/05chuu_chousakekka_shiryou.htm (in Japanese).
5 Incorporating National Assessment into Curriculum Design … 103

MEXT. (2013a). Outline of national assessment of academic ability. Available online at http://www.
mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/gakuryoku-chousa/zenkoku/07032809.htm (in Japanese).
MEXT. (2013b). On the practical research toward the establishment of cycle of inspection and
improvement on the basis of the results of NAAA. Available online at http://www.mext.go.jp/a_
menu/shotou/gakuryoku-chousa/sonota/08013006.htm. (in Japanese).
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Ruddock G. J., O’Sullivan, G. J., & Preuschoff, C. (2009). TIMSS
2011 Assessment frameworks. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center,
Boston College. Available online at http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2011/international-results-
mathematics.html.
NIER. (2009a). Examples of ideas for lesson on the basis of the results of NAAA. Available online
at http://www.nier.go.jp/jugyourei/index.htm. (in Japanese).
NIER. (2009b). Report of NAAA 2009 (Elementary school). Available online at http://www.nier.go.
jp/09chousakekkahoukoku/02shou_chousakekka_houkokusho.htm. (in Japanese).
NIER. (2012). Summary of content that further approaches are expected from the results of
NAAA over these four years. Available online at http://www.nier.go.jp/4nenmatome/index.htm.
(in Japanese).
NIER. (2013a). Examples of effective trials by schools to improve their students’ academic
abilities by using the results of NAAA. Available online at http://www.nier.go.jp/kaihatsu/
zenkokugakuryoku.html. (in Japanese).
NIER. (2013b). Report of the results of NAAA 2013. Available online at http://www.nier.go.jp/
13chousakekkahoukoku/index.html. (in Japanese).
NIER. (2016). Report of the results of NAAA 2016. Available online at http://www.nier.go.jp/
16chousakekkahoukoku/report/question/. (in Japanese).
Research Committee on the relationship between ICT use and academic ability and situation of
learning. (2009). Survey on the relationship between ICT use and academic ability and situation
of learning: Project entrusted by MEXT. Yokohama National University. (in Japanese).
Tabata, T. (2012). A study on children’s mistakes in the three uses of ratio: From the results of
National Assessment of Academic Ability. In Proceedings of the 45th Conference on Japan
Society of Mathematical Education (Vol. 1, pp. 45–50). November 10–11, Nara University of
Education. (in Japanese).
Travers, K., & Westbury, I. (1989). The IEA study of mathematics I: Analysis of mathematics
curricula. Supplement. Reports: Researc’/Technical (143). ERIC (# ED 306 111).

Hino Keiko is a Professor of Mathematics Education at Utsunomiya University in Japan. She

has published over 50 journal articles and has presented her work at both national and interna-
tional conferences. She has been involved in several national projects, including the revision of
the national Course of Study, and has also played roles in several international projects and con-
ferences on Mathematics Education.

Ginshima Fumi is a Curriculum Director and also a Deputy Director of the Department for Cur-
riculum Research at National Institute for Educational Policy Research, NIER in Japan. She works
as a Project Leader of TIMSS in Japan and as an IEA General Assembly representative of Japan.
She had been in charge of the National Assessment of Academic Ability in Japan for five years.
Before moving to NIER, she worked as an Associate Professor at Kanazawa University.
Chapter 6
Representation of Algebra Concepts
in Singapore Secondary Mathematics
Textbooks

Siew Yin Ho and Tin Lam Toh

Abstract Textbooks mediate between the intended curriculum and the enacted cur-
riculum. Besides the curriculum document describing the intended curriculum, text-
books influence what and how teachers and how students learn a subject. In the
context of Singapore, textbooks align to the curriculum of the Singapore Ministry of
Education and translate the abstract curriculum into tangible teaching materials that
can be used for classroom instruction. Despite this importance, there has been rela-
tively few research on Singapore Mathematics textbooks. With the recent curricular
content updates and emphases on various initiatives to better prepare our students for
the twenty-first century, it is now timely to re-examine the Singapore Mathematics
textbooks. In this chapter, we look at the latest version of the Singapore Mathemat-
ics (Lower Secondary) textbooks with focus on the algebra topic. We then discuss
our findings in relation to previous research that examined Singapore Mathematics
(Lower Secondary) textbooks.

6.1 Introduction

It is well-known that textbooks influence what and how teachers teach, and therefore
how students learn a subject. In Singapore, textbooks drive the curriculum recom-
mended by the Singapore Ministry of Education. There have been several papers
written on Singapore Secondary Mathematics textbooks. In particular, Fan and Zhu
have published two papers in which they analysed Singapore Secondary Mathematics
textbooks (e.g., 2000, 2007). They used mainly Polya’s framework and considered
various elements related to it such as the problem-type (e.g., routine vs. non-routine,
open-ended vs. close-ended). With the recent updates in curricular content, increas-
ing emphasis on mathematical modelling, real-world problems and greater emphasis
on the use of technology in the secondary school mathematics curriculum, and not

S. Y. Ho · T. L. Toh (B)
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University,
Jurong West, Singapore
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 105

C. P. Vistro-Yu and T. L. Toh (eds.), School Mathematics Curricula,
Mathematics Education – An Asian Perspective,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6312-2_6
106 S. Y. Ho and T. L. Toh

forgetting the introduction of the twenty-first century skills framework by the Sin-
gapore Ministry of Education in 2010 (Ministry of Education, 2010), it is timely to
revisit the Singapore Secondary school mathematics textbooks. This chapter exam-
ines the new mathematics textbooks that were revised after the recent mathematics
curriculum was introduced.

6.2 Framework for Twenty-First Century Competencies

and Student Outcomes and the Secondary Mathematics
Curriculum in Singapore

The Singapore Ministry of Education advocates that students in the Singapore Edu-
cation system be provided with school experiences that will prepare them for the
challenges in the future. They proposed a framework for the development of twenty-
first century competencies and the resulting student outcomes. There are four types
of student outcomes—confident person, self-directed learner, active contributor, and
concerned citizen. More details can be found in the website https://www.moe.gov.
sg/education/education-system/21st-century-competencies.
Wong (2016) identified the correspondence between these student outcomes and
the various components of the Singapore Mathematics Curriculum Framework, com-
monly known as the “pentagon framework.” This link is shown in Table 6.1.
Based on Table 6.1, Wong (2016) noted that the implementation of the twenty-
first century Competencies Framework “does not require making drastic changes to
mathematics lessons” (p. 36). He suggested that the current learning experiences in
the classrooms be further enriched to cover the four student outcomes.
The idea of learning experience was emphasised in the latest curriculum revision
that was completed in 2011. The idea of learning experience could be traced back
to as early as Tyler’s work on curriculum development in 1949. Tyler’s model of
curriculum design and development is one of the best known among the existing
models of curriculum design and development. Tyler stated that people involved in
curriculum must identify educational experiences that are related to the objectives
of the curriculum. According to Tyler (1949), learning experiences must involve the

Table 6.1 Twenty-first century competencies student outcomes and their corresponding compo-
nents in the Singapore mathematics curriculum framework
Student outcomes (twenty-first century Components of Singapore mathematics
competencies) curriculum framework
Confident person Attitudes, concepts, skills, processes
Self-directed learner Metacognition, self-regulated learning
Active contributor Attitudes, processes
Concerned citizen Processes, problem solving
6 Representation of Algebra Concepts in Singapore Secondary … 107

interaction between the learners and their environment, resulting in some features
of the environment attracting their attention and hence reaction. Implied in this def-
inition of learning experience is the pervading belief that the learner is an active
participant in the process of learning.
The Singapore Ministry of Education adopts Tyler’s model of curriculum design
and development. The latest secondary mathematics syllabuses (MOE, 2012) offer
suggestions and examples for classroom teachers to provide students with learning
experiences\opportunities in order to develop the twenty-first century competencies.

6.3 Past Research Conducted on Singapore Secondary

Mathematics Textbooks

This section focuses on only two studies that investigated the problem-solving com-
ponent in Singapore Secondary school mathematics textbooks. They were under-
taken by two educational researchers who were based in Singapore at the time of
publication of their studies.
In 2000, Fan and Zhu analysed a particular series of Singapore Secondary (Lower)
Mathematics textbooks current at that time, using the framework of mathematical
problem solving (Fan & Zhu, 2000), by identifying the types of mathematical prob-
lems used in the textbook series. They classified the problems according to the
following categorisations:
(a) Routine Problems versus Non-routine Problems
(b) Traditional Problems versus Non-traditional Problems
(c) Open-ended Problems versus Close-ended Problems
(d) Application Problems versus Non-application Problems
(e) Single-step Problems versus Multi-step Problems
(f) Sufficient Data Problems, Extraneous Data Problems, and Insufficient Data
Problems
(g) Problems in a Purely Mathematical Form, Problems in a Verbal Form, Problems
in a Visual Form, and Problems in a Combined Form
(h) Polya’s 4 steps
(i) Problem-solving heuristics.
Before the discussion, we shall have a clear understanding of the meaning of a
mathematical “problem.” A “problem” has multiple, and often contradictory, mean-
ings. On the one extreme, there is the definition by Lester (1978) that is generally
accepted by mathematics educators: A problem is a situation in which an individual
or group is called upon to perform a task for which there is no readily accessible
algorithm, which determines completely the method of solution. In addition, Lester
(1980) adds that the definition of a “problem” assumes an urge on the part of the
individual or group to perform the task. At the other extreme is the definition, more
generally accepted by the wider community, found in Collin’s Dictionary (1993): A
108 S. Y. Ho and T. L. Toh

statement requiring a solution usually by means of several operations or construc-

tions. The Singapore Ministry of Education obviously chose the latter definition
as they use the terms “routine problem solving” and “non-routine problem solv-
ing.” Thus, the term “non-routine problem” would mean exactly what Lester (1978)
defined as a “problem”. Fan and Zhu (2000) obviously chose this latter definition in
order to elaborate the many categories above.
Fan and Zhu (2000) found that most problems in the textbooks were presented
using the third phase of Polya’s four-phase problem-solving processes model (i.e.
Carry Out the Plan, or solving the problem), with little emphasis on the complete
Polya’s model. Out of all the problems in the entire Singapore Secondary (Lower)
Mathematics textbook series, only two problems were solved using all the four
phases. They recommended that more non-routine problems, non-traditional prob-
lems (for example, problems in the form of projects), open-ended problems, and
application problems (especially using authentic “real-life” problems) should be
included in the textbooks.
In a latter study done by Fan and Zhu (2007), they further analysed the same series
of textbooks using Polya’s four-phase problem-solving framework and problem-
solving heuristics. Heuristics are “rules of thumb” that one uses when one encounters
a difficult situation in solving a problem (Schoenfeld, 1985). A list of heuristics is
given in both the Singapore mathematics primary and secondary syllabuses.
Fan and Zhu (2007) found in their study that the Singapore Secondary (Lower)
Mathematics textbooks introduced heuristics separately from, rather than infusing
into, the main content topics. Additionally, problem solving was treated as one inde-
pendent topic and appeared in the form of drills. They suggest that this may well
explain why Singapore students outperformed Australia in the TIMSS but not in the
International Mathematics Olympiad (As an after note, the Singapore International
Mathematics Olympiad team has recently performed very well and ranked within
the top ten countries in the world!). They also found that there is a considerable gap
between the curriculum standards and the textbook developer’s interpretation and
implementation. Fan and Zhu suggested more attention from the Singapore curricu-
lum developers to this issue of consistency between the curriculum standards and
textbooks in future curriculum development focusing on problem solving.

6.4 Rationale

In Singapore, textbooks play a major role in the teaching and learning of mathematics.
Due to the high achievement of Singapore students in international tests, Singapore
textbooks have been receiving wide attention from many countries wanting to know
the way mathematics is being taught in Singapore. Singapore textbooks are seen by
some as “examples of teaching excellence” (Tham, 2014). A number of countries,
such as Brunei, Thailand, Libya, South Africa, the Netherlands, Chile, Colombia,
Panama, and the United States, have since started using customised textbooks based
on “Singapore maths” (see Sim, 2014; Teng, 2014; Tham, 2014).
6 Representation of Algebra Concepts in Singapore Secondary … 109

As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, Fan and Zhu analysed Singapore
Secondary mathematics textbooks more than fifteen years ago. With the new initia-
tives such as the twenty-first century competencies implemented by the Singapore
Ministry of Education, it makes sense to refocus research on Singapore textbooks.
Following Fan and Zhu’s studies, we also chose to investigate the lower Secondary
grade level because students at this age level (ages of 13–14) were found to relate
significantly well to problem-solving heuristics (Days, Wheatley, & Kulm, 1979;
Hembree, 1992).
The TIMSS 2007 study found Singapore Secondary Two or Grade 8 students
(age 14 years) to be relatively weak in the algebra content domain. These students
achieved an average of only 67% for the algebra content items in the study. They
were also weak in reasoning, which forms one of the three cognitive components
tested in the study (The other two components are “Knowing” and “Applying”.).
The TIMSS 2011 study found Singapore Secondary Two or Grade 8 students (age
14 years, and who participated in TIMSS 2007 at Grade 8) improved in the score for
the algebra content domain to 72%. However, these students’ reasoning component
of the mathematics cognitive domain was still weak.
Algebra is “a way of thinking that forms the bedrock of mathematics” (Ng, 2012,
p. 1). This thinking, called algebraic thinking or algebraic reasoning, involves mod-
elling situations; that is, being able to analyse and describe change both quantitatively
and qualitatively. Fostering such thinking requires the development of intellectual
habits of mind such as metacognition which is a twenty-first century competency
the Ministry of Education advocates to inculcate in every student schooled in the
Singapore Education system. These are the main reasons we chose to analyse the
algebra chapters in the Singapore secondary mathematics textbooks.

6.5 The Current Study

This study examined how algebra concepts are presented in the Singapore textbooks
in two of the most commonly used series of secondary mathematics textbooks in
Singapore—Discovering Mathematics (2nd edition) and New Syllabus Mathematics
(7th edition). The purpose of the study is not to make an evaluation of the quality
of these textbooks, but to examine how the algebra concepts are discussed. More
specifically, we investigated whether the two series of textbooks reflect the intended
curriculum standard stipulated by the Singapore Ministry of Education.
In this study, we follow Fan and Zhu’s (2000, 2007) definition of a problem.
Therefore, a problem is “a situation that requires a decision and/or answer, no matter
the solution is readily available or not to the solver” (p. 121). According to Fan and
Zhu (2000), this definition is “more operational in textbook analysis where a textbook
is treated as intended curriculum and the students who will use the textbook in their
learning of mathematics are not exactly known” (p. 121).
110 S. Y. Ho and T. L. Toh

6.5.1 The Research Questions

Cognizant of the goals and aims of the Singapore Secondary school mathematics
curriculum, we attempt to answer the following questions:
1. To what extent are mathematical processes reflected in the algebra chapters in
the two textbooks?
2. To what extent are thinking skills reflected in the algebra chapters in the two
textbooks?
3. To what extent are heuristics reflected in the algebra chapters in the two text-
books?
4. How is problem solving presented in the two textbooks?
5. To what extent is metacognition explicated in the two textbook series?
6. To what extent are Learning experiences reflected in the two textbook series?

6.5.2 Framework of the Study

We used both Polya’s problem-solving framework and the categorisation framework

used by Fan and Zhu (2000) for this study. We focused on Polya’s 4-phase problem-
solving processes, graphic/non-graphic problem, Mathematical processes, thinking
skills and heuristics—in particular “Draw a Diagram”/Use a Diagram, Metacognition
and Learning experiences. We examined whether the problems in the textbooks
displayed the components in this framework.

6.5.2.1 Polya’s 4-Phase Problem-Solving Processes

In his book, How to Solve It, Polya (1954) proposed a problem-solving model to
which the problem solver can refer when solving a problem. They are also suggestions
to teachers on how to improve students’ problem-solving ability. This problem-
solving model consists of four phases:
Phase 1: Understanding the problem
Phase 2: Devising a plan
Phase 3: Carrying out the plan
Phase 4: Looking back (i.e. examine the solution obtained).

6.5.2.2 Graphic/Non-graphic Problem

A graphic problem is a task depicting visual information. A non-graphic problem is

a verbal task and does not include any visual information.
6 Representation of Algebra Concepts in Singapore Secondary … 111

6.5.2.3 Mathematical Processes

Mathematical processes are important problem-solving process skills “involved in

the process of acquiring and applying mathematical knowledge” (MOE, 2012, p. 31).
The Singapore mathematics curriculum framework, popularly known as the “pen-
tagon framework”, identifies the five attributes of mathematical problem solving. One
of these attributes is mathematical processes, which include reasoning, communica-
tion and connections, applications and modeling, and thinking skills and heuristics
(MOE, 2012, p. 31).

6.5.2.4 Thinking Skills and Heuristics—In Particular “Draw

a Diagram”/Use a Diagram

According to the syllabus, metacognition is the ability to control one’s own thinking
processes in problem-solving, including (1) constant and conscious monitoring of the
strategies and thinking processes used in carrying out a task; (2) seeking alternative
ways of performing a task; and (3) checking the appropriateness and reasonableness
of answers (MOE, Singapore, 2000, p. 12). The description is highly consistent with
that of “looking back” described in the conceptual framework and in Phase four of
Polya’s problem-solving model.

6.5.2.5 Learning Experiences

We provide some examples of Learning experiences stipulated in the Singapore

Secondary Mathematics Curriculum (MOE, 2012, pp. 35, 36, 40).
Secondary One Algebra Concepts
Example 1: Learning experience (a):
Use spreadsheets, e.g. Microsoft Excel, to
• Explore the concept of variables and evaluate algebraic expressions.
• Compare and examine the differences between pairs of expressions, e.g. 2n and 2
+ n, n2 and 2n, 2n2 and (2n)2 (CPDD, 2012, p. 35).
Example 2: Learning experience (c):

Use the AlgeDiscTM application in AlgeToolsTM to construct and simplify linear

expressions with integral coefficients (CPDD, 2012, p. 36).
Secondary Two Algebra Concepts
Example 1: Learning experience (a):
Use algebra manipulatives, e.g. algebra discs, to explain the process of expanding
the product of two linear expressions of the form px + q, where p and q are integers,
to obtain a quadratic expression of the form ax 2 + bx + c.
112 S. Y. Ho and T. L. Toh

Example 2: Learning experience (c)

Work in groups to identify and explain common errors in algebraic manipulations,
e.g. (x + y)2 = x 2 + y2 .

6.5.3 The Textbooks

Secondary school education in Singapore is comprised of four streams—Express

course, Normal (Academic) course, Normal (Technical) and Specialised course. Stu-
dents are placed at the relevant stream according to how they perform at the Primary
School Leaving Examination (PSLE). The PSLE is a high-stakes examination taken
by Primary 6 students (age 12 years) at the end of their six years of primary education.
In Singapore, the two most common secondary mathematics textbooks used in
the learning of mathematics are discovering Mathematics (2nd edition) and New
Syllabus Mathematics (7th edition). It is for this reason that we selected these two
series of textbooks as the subjects of our study. At the lower secondary level, the dis-
covering Mathematics (2nd edition) series consists of four textbooks—discovering
Mathematics 1A (2nd edition) (Chow, 2013a), discovering Mathematics 1B (2nd edi-
tion) (Chow, 2013b), discovering Mathematics 2A (2nd edition) (Chow, 2014) and
discovering Mathematics 2B (2nd edition), while the New Syllabus Mathematics (7th
edition) series consists of two textbooks—New Syllabus Mathematics 1 (7th edition)
(Yeo et al., 2013) and New Syllabus Mathematics 2 (7th edition) (Yeo et al., 2014).
Note that there are no algebra topics in discovering Mathematics 2B (2nd edition).
Hence, this particular book was excluded for the study.
The algebra topics for Secondary One chosen for analysis in the study are shown
in Table 6.2.
As shown in Table 6.2, four chapters were analysed for the Secondary 1 dis-
covering Mathematics (2nd edition) series and three chapters were analysed for the
Secondary 1 New Syllabus Mathematics (7th edition) series. It should be noted that

Table 6.2 Textbooks chosen for the study

Textbook series Algebra topics
discovering Mathematics 1A (2nd edition) Chapter 4 Introduction To Algebra
Chapter 5 Algebraic Manipulation
Chapter 6 Simple Equations In One Variable
discovering Mathematics 1B (2nd edition) Chapter 11 Number Patterns
New Syllabus Mathematics 1 (7th edition) Chapter 4 Basic Algebra and Algebraic
Manipulation
Chapter 5 Linear Equations and Simple
Inequalities (Sect. 5.4 Simple Inequalities
omitted)
Chapter 7 Number Patterns
6 Representation of Algebra Concepts in Singapore Secondary … 113

Table 6.3 Details of textbook chapters chosen for the study

Textbook series Algebra topics
discovering Mathematics 2A (2nd edition) Chapter 2 Expansion and Factorisation of
Algebraic Expressions
Chapter 3 Simple Algebraic Fractions
Chapter 4 Quadratic Functions and Equations
Chapter 5 Linear Equations in Two Variables
New Syllabus Mathematics 2 (7th edition) Chapter 2 Linear Graphs and Simultaneous
Linear Equations
Chapter 3 Expansion and Factorisation of
Quadratic Expressions
Chapter 4 Further Expansion and Factorisation of
Algebraic Expressions
Chapter 5 Quadratic Equations and Graphs
Chapter 6 Algebraic Fractions and Formulae

the content in Chap. 4 of the New Syllabus Mathematics (7th edition) series is pre-
sented in two chapters, Chaps. 4 and 5, in the discovering Mathematics (2nd edition)
series.
The algebra topics for Secondary 2 chosen for analysis in the study are shown in
Table 6.3.
There are no algebra topics in discovering Mathematics 2B (2nd edition). Hence,
this particular book was excluded for the study.
As shown in Table 6.3, four chapters were analysed for the Secondary 2 dis-
covering Mathematics (2nd edition) series and five chapters were analysed for the
Secondary 2 New Syllabus Mathematics (7th edition) series. It should be noted that
the content in Chap. 2 of the discovering Mathematics (2nd edition) series is pre-
sented in two chapters, Chaps. 3 and 4, in the New Syllabus Mathematics (7th edition)
series.
Using the above-mentioned framework, we examined and coded all the mathemat-
ics tasks in the two series of Singapore Secondary Mathematics textbooks selected.
We only included the tasks in which problem-solving procedures and solutions are
provided. We excluded the tasks in the exercises as problem-solving procedures are
not demonstrated, only the answers to most exercise tasks are provided at the back
pages of the textbooks.

6.6 Results and Discussion

6.6.1 Coding Process

The coding of the textbook analysis was done by the two researchers of this study.
Each researcher coded independently all the five algebra concept chapters from the
114 S. Y. Ho and T. L. Toh

two textbook series. They then compared their coding analysis with each other. Any
discrepancy in coding was discussed, and the final coding was agreed upon by both
researchers.

6.6.2 Descriptions of the Textbooks

Upon examination of the following books in the two series, we found that:
discovering Mathematics 1A (2nd edition) contains 8 chapters, has 214 pages
excluding preface and content list. Answers to the problems in all exercises are pro-
vided in the last 8 pages of the book. There is a 6-page section on “Problem-Solving
processes and heuristics” before the Answers section. This section describes Polya’s
four-phase problem-solving process to help students become good problem solvers.
It also illustrates how to go about using Polya’s four-phase problem-solving pro-
cess with 4 heuristics via 4 examples. The four heuristics illustrated are “Use guess
and check”, “Draw a Diagram and make a table”, “Use a Variable” and “Write an
Equation”. The example given for “Write an equation” involves using an unknown
denoted by x, an algebra concept.
discovering Mathematics 1B (2nd edition) contains 8 chapters, has 227 pages
excluding preface and content list. Answers to the problems in all exercises are
provided in the last 10 pages of the book. There is a 4-page section on “Prob-
lems in Real-World Contexts” before the Answers section. This section presents 8
examples of real-world problems. The 8 examples cover the following real-world
contexts—“Rate and discount in a Supermarket”, “Exchange Rate” (of currency),
“Oversupply of Shoebox Units”, “Paper Clip” (manufacture), “Medals Won in 2008
Summer Olympic Games in Beijing”, “Prepaid Mobile Phone Plans”, “Population
of Singapore” and “Fund Raising”. The example given for “Prepaid Mobile Phone
Plans” involves using unknowns denoted by x or y (for number of phone calls) and
t (time duration), an algebra concept. Solutions are not provided after the problems,
and answers to these problems are not provided in the Answers section at the end of
the book.
New Syllabus Mathematics 1 (7th edition) contains 15 chapters, has 445 pages
excluding preface and content list. Answers to the problems in all exercises are
provided in the last 20 pages of the book. There is a 6-page section on “Prob-
lems in Real-World Contexts” before the Answers section. This section presents 6
examples of real-world problems. The 7 examples cover the following real-world
contexts—“Income Tax”, “Floor Area” (floor plan of a 5-room flat), “Purchasing
a Flat (Stamp Duty)”, “Scuba Diving” (Volume of gas and water in the cylinder),
and “Climate Change (greenhouse gas emissions)”, “Smartphone Price Plans” and
“Fun Fair (making sugar cookies to sell)”. The example given for “Smartphone Price
Plans” involves an algebra concept. Solutions are not provided after the problems,
and answers to these problems are not provided in the Answers section at the end of
the book.
6 Representation of Algebra Concepts in Singapore Secondary … 115

discovering Mathematics 2A (2nd edition) contains 6 chapters, has 209 pages

excluding preface and content list. Answers to the problems in all exercises are
provided in the last 11 pages of the book. There is an 8-page section on “Problem-
Solving processes and heuristics” before the Answers section. This section describes
Polya’s four-phase problem-solving process to help students become good problem
solvers. It also illustrates how to go about using Polya’s four-phase problem-solving
process with 4 heuristics via 4 examples. The four heuristics illustrated are “Draw
a Diagram”, “Use Guess and Check, Make a Table”, “Identify Subgoals and Work
Backwards” and “Use a Variable, Think of a Related Problem”. The example given
for “Use a Variable, Think of a Related Problem” heuristics involves using unknowns
denoted by x (increase in monthly gymnasium membership fee), and y (monthly rev-
enue), an algebra concept.
New Syllabus Mathematics 2 (7th edition) contains 13 chapters, has 420 pages
excluding preface and content list. Answers to the problems in all exercises are pro-
vided in the last 20 pages of the book. There is a 4-page section on “Problems in
Real-World Contexts” before the Answers section. This section presents 7 exam-
ples of real-world problems. The 7 examples cover the following real-world con-
texts—“Swimming Competitions” (competition timings), “Louvre Pyramid” (vol-
ume and area), “Lucky Draw Scams”, “How Long Do I Need to Get Home”, “Con-
ical Wine Glass”, “Braking Distance” and “Singapore River” (build a bridge). The
example given for “Braking Distance” involves the use of linear functions, an alge-
bra concept. Solutions are not provided after the problems, and answers to these
problems are not provided in the Answers section at the end of the book.

6.6.3 Classification of Problems

All the problems in the textbooks were first divided into two general categories—text
problems, which are contained in the text part, and exercise problems, which are
located in the exercises in the textbooks. Table 6.4 shows the breakdown of the total
number of problems in each textbook, and the number of graphic and non-graphic
problems in each textbook. We omit the exercise problems in the textbooks as they
do not contain solutions to the problems.
Research Question 1: To what extent are mathematical processes reflected in the
algebra chapters in the two textbooks?
Table 6.5 shows the number of each type of mathematical processes counted in
the textbooks.
There was an obvious focus on the Reasoning, Communication and Connections
mathematical process. There were very few Applications and Modelling problems
presented and discussed.
We had similar findings with the Secondary Two textbooks (Table 6.6), that is, the
focus is on Reasoning, Communication and Connections and relatively few problems
are found on Applications and Modelling.
116 S. Y. Ho and T. L. Toh

Table 6.4 Classification of problems in the textbooks

Textbook series Number of problems Number of graphic Number of
(example problems, problems non-graphic
investigation, class problems
discussion, thinking
time)
discovering 36 3 33
Mathematics 1A (2nd
edition)
discovering 9 8 1
Mathematics 1B (2nd
edition)
New Syllabus 54 0 54
Mathematics 1 (7th
edition)
discovering 50 16 34
Mathematics 2A (2nd
edition)
New Syllabus 89 31 58
Mathematics 2 (7th
edition)

Table 6.5 Number of each type of mathematical processes counted in the Secondary One textbooks
Mathematical discovering discovering New Syllabus
processes Mathematics 1A (2nd Mathematics 1B (2nd Mathematics 1 (7th
edition) edition) edition)
Reasoning, 25 9 53
communication and
connections
Applications and 4 0 0
modelling
Reasoning, 7 0 1
communication and
connections, and
applications and
modelling

Table 6.6 Number of each type of mathematical processes counted in the Secondary Two textbooks
Mathematical processes discovering Mathematics 2A New Syllabus Mathematics 2
(2nd edition) (7th edition)
Reasoning, communication 45 87
and connections
Applications and modelling 1 0
Reasoning, communication 4 2
and connections, and
applications and modelling
6 Representation of Algebra Concepts in Singapore Secondary … 117

The Singapore Secondary Mathematics One to Four (Express Course and Normal
Technical Course) stated that “[g]reater attention will be given to applications and
modeling at the secondary level” (CPDD, 2012, p. 31). However, this increase in
attention in the curriculum is not translated to the Singapore Secondary Mathematics
textbooks that are widely used in the Singapore schools.
Research Question 2: To what extent are thinking skills reflected in the algebra
chapters in the two textbooks?
Table 6.7 shows the number of each type of thinking skills reflected in the algebra
chapters of the Secondary One textbooks.
From Table 6.7, majority of the thinking skills emphasised in the Secondary One
textbooks were on “Solving”, “Simplifying”, “Analysing”.
Table 6.8 shows the number of each type of thinking skills reflected in the algebra
chapters of the Secondary Two textbooks.
From Table 6.8, the Secondary Two discovering Mathematics series seemed to
emphasise “Simplifying”, while the New Syllabus Mathematics 2 series seemed to
place emphasis on the “Analysing” skill. Although there is an emphasis on the various
problem-solving skills in the two textbooks, there is a lack of uniformity in the set
of skills published by the two textbooks.
Research Question 3: To what extent are heuristics reflected in the algebra chapters
in the two textbooks?
Tables 6.9 and 6.10 show the number of problems reflecting the use of the “Draw a
Diagram” heuristic and the IT manipulative, algeToolsTM . Only one example showing
the link between the Model method and its equivalent algebraic explanation was
presented in the New Syllabus Mathematics 1 (7th edition) series, as compared to
eight such examples presented in the discovering Mathematics 1A (2nd edition)
series. Considering the importance of bridging the pictorial representation (Model
Method) of the algebraic concept which they have learnt in the Primary School years
to its abstract representation at Secondary school level, we observed a cursory attempt
to make such a linkage in the New Syllabus Mathematics 1 (7th edition) series.
For the two Secondary Two textbook series, use of technology is reflected to aid
students’ learning of the relevant algebra concepts. This is aligned with the emphasis
on the use of technology to discover mathematical concepts. The inclusion of the use
of technology also reflects the textbooks’ attempts to include learning experiences
that are explicitly stated in the syllabus documents.
Research Question 4: How is problem solving presented in the two textbooks?
Tables 6.11 and 6.12 show Polya’s model in the representation of problem solu-
tions in the two textbook series. The study found that the two textbook series, in
most cases, merely presented “Carrying out the plan” in the solutions to problems.
This finding echoes those found in Fan and Zhu’s (2000) study—“…the solutions to
most problems displayed in the textbook just show how to carry out the plan, which
in Polya’s model is the third stage” (pp. 136, 137).
118 S. Y. Ho and T. L. Toh

Table 6.7 Number of each type of thinking skills reflected in the algebra chapters in the Secondary
One textbooks
Thinking skills discovering discovering New Syllabus
Mathematics 1A (2nd Mathematics 1B (2nd Mathematics 1 (7th
edition) edition) edition)
Generalising 2 0 1
Analysing 9 0 7
Simplifying 10 0 4
Formulating algebraic 1 0 0
expression
Substituting values 3 0 3
Formulating algebraic 0 0 1
expression +
substituting
Formulating and 0 0 3
solving algebraic
expression
Comparing 1 0 1
Classifying and 4 0 0
comparing
Classifying, 4 0 0
comparing and
simplifying
Formulating with 1 0 0
algebraic expressions
Solving 14 0 4
Analysing and 0 2 1
sequencing
Analysing, 0 3 6
sequencing and
generalising
Analysing, 0 4 0
sequencing,
generalising and
substituting
Analysing 0 0 10
Representing 0 0 1
6 Representation of Algebra Concepts in Singapore Secondary … 119

Table 6.8 Number of each type of thinking skills reflected in the algebra chapters in the Secondary
Two textbooks
Mathematical processes discovering Mathematics 2A New Syllabus Mathematics 2
(2nd edition) (7th edition)
Analysing 0 18
Simplifying 20 0
Substituting values 0 2
Solving 0 12
Analysing and evaluating 0 1
Analysing and substituting 0 2
Analysing and solving 0 1
equations
Recognising (correct identity) 4 0
Recognising (correct identity) 2 0
and substituting values
Identifying formulae or 1 0
substituting values
Generalising (based on 1 0
patterns)
Solving equation 6 0
Formulating and solving 2 3
Formulating, substituting, 0 4
evaluating
Reading from diagram 1 0
Interpreting graphs 2 0
Deduction 1 0
Solving 1 3
Looking for patterns 0 1
Analysing and looking for 0 2
patterns
Analysing, substituting, 0 1
evaluating
Use of formula, looking for 0 1
patterns, substituting,
evaluating
Manipulating formula and 0 5
substituting
Formulating, looking for 0 1
patterns, substituting,
evaluating
Looking for patterns, 0 1
substituting, analysing
Simplifying and solving 0 62
120 S. Y. Ho and T. L. Toh

Table 6.9 Number of problems reflecting the Draw a Diagram heuristic

Heuristics discovering discovering New Syllabus
Mathematics 1A (2nd Mathematics 1B (2nd Mathematics 1 (7th
edition) edition) edition)
In solution: use of 1 0 0
“Draw a Diagram”
heuristic, e.g. diagram
of the problem context
(car travelling a
distance)
In particular, model 8 0 1
method
In particular, use of 3 (occur in the class 0 17
algeToolsTM (IT activity task where a
manipulative) number of examples
are provided per
class activity task)
Tabulating (of figure 1 0 3
number in pattern)

Table 6.10 Number of problems reflecting the Draw a Diagram heuristic

Mathematical processes discovering Mathematics 2A New Syllabus Mathematics 1
(2nd edition) (7th edition)
In solution: “Draw a Diagram” 11 1
Use of multiplication frame
In solution: “Draw a Diagram” 3 10
Use of algeToolsTM (IT
manipulative)
In solution: “Draw a Diagram” 0 17
Use of algeToolsTM +
multiplication frame
Heuristic—tabulating 6 2

Table 6.11 Polya’s model in the representation of problem solutions in the Secondary One text-
books
Polya’s steps discovering discovering New Syllabus
Mathematics 1A (2nd Mathematics 1B (2nd Mathematics 1 (7th
edition) edition) edition)
Phase 3 only 29 7 20
Phase 3 and phase 4 7 0 3
Phases 1–4 1 0 0
Phase 1 and phase 3 0 1 0
6 Representation of Algebra Concepts in Singapore Secondary … 121

Table 6.12 Polya’s model in the representation of problem solutions in the Secondary Two text-
books
Polya’s steps discovering Mathematics 2A (2nd New Syllabus Mathematics 2 (7th
edition) edition)
Phase 3 only 49 104
Phase 3 and phase 4 0 7
Phase 4 0 7
Phases 1, 2 and 3 1 0

Table 6.13 Number of problems reflecting the use of metacognition in the problems
Textbook discovering discovering New Syllabus discovering New Syllabus
series Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics
1A (2nd 1B (2nd 1 (7th 2A (2nd 2 (7th
edition) edition) edition) edition) edition)
Number of 8 (out of 36 0 3 (out of 54 28 (out of 50 14 (out of 89
problems problems) problems) problems) problems)

In Fan and Zhu’s (2007) study, they found that there were only two problems that
presented and discussed all four phases of Polya’s framework. In our study, there is
only one problem in the discovering Mathematics 2A (2nd edition) that discussed all
the four phases, and none in any of the Secondary Two series. Fan and Zhu’s (2007)
study not only found that “Singapore textbooks contained the fewest demonstrations
of the ‘looking back’ stage in their solutions” (p. 67)—comparing Chinese, Singapore
and US mathematics textbooks. They also found that the Singapore textbooks placed
the focus on the correctness and reasonableness of the final answer in the illustration
of “looking back” (47% of demonstrations of “looking back”).
In order for students to have a complete understanding of problem-solving pro-
cesses, it is crucial that students have ample opportunity to experience the entire
problem-solving process, rather than just focus on a part of the problem-solving
process (Toh, Quek, & Tay, 2008). Inviting the students to go through the entire
problem-solving process, in the authors’ mind, should constitute an extremely valu-
able learning experience in authentic problem solving.
Research Question 5: To what extent is metacognition explicated in the two textbook
series?
Table 6.13 shows the number of problems reflecting the use of metacognition in
the problems. From Table 6.13, there seemed to be more explication of metacognition
in the discovering Mathematics 2A (2nd edition) textbook compared to its Secondary
One counterpart. As for the New Syllabus Mathematics (7th edition), the explication
of metacognition was quite minimal.
Metacognition is knowing how one thinks. It deals with the efficiency with which
individuals utilise the knowledge at their disposal and is an extremely important
component of mathematical thinking and problem solving (Schoenfeld, 1985). It is
122 S. Y. Ho and T. L. Toh

also a very important habit of mind as it allows the problem solver to keep track
of his/her thinking and self-regulate his/her learning via making changes to his/her
thinking processes. The fourth and last phase of Polya’s four-phase model, Looking
Back, recommends “examine the solution obtained”. To do so, one may ask oneself,
“Can you check the result?” and “Can you check the argument?” These two questions
refer directly to the solution obtained. According to Polya (1945), examination of the
solution is not only about the solution and answer that were arrived at. To examine the
solution obtained also includes whether the problem solver could derive the result
differently and whether he/she could “see it at a glance”. In this way of using two
different variations, can we then “convince ourselves” of the validity of the result
obtained. Polya further recommended asking ourselves the following questions: Can
you use the result, or the method, for some other problem? Polya explained the
rationale behind these two questions:
Having made some discovery, however modest, we should not fail to inquire whether there
is something more behind it, we should not miss the possibilities opened up by the new
result, we should try to use it again the procedure used. Exploit your success! Can you use
the result, or the method, for some other problem? (pp. 64, 65)

Table 6.14 shows the number of types of “Looking Back” components. Looking
at the data from Table 6.14, the two textbook series seemed to focus on checking the
answers and the validity of the method. We would like to suggest that the textbook
writers include more of the other two aspects or considerations of Looking Back so
as to expose students to the other aspects of this phase of problem solving. This will
also enable students to have a more complete understanding of what problem solving
entails.
Research Question 6: To what extent are Learning Experiences reflected in the two
textbook series?
Table 6.15 shows the number of problems that reflect the Learning Experi-
ences recommended by the Singapore Secondary One to Four Mathematics (Express
Course and Normal Academic Course).
Only five of the six Learning Experiences as recommended in the Singapore Sec-
ondary Mathematics Syllabus are reflected in both series of textbook for Secondary
One. The learning experience that was not reflected in both textbooks involved writ-
ing algebraic expressions to express mathematical relationships (e). This particular
learning experience bridges the model method to its algebraic counterpart. This prob-
ably explains why we found so few problems on the model method as discussed in
an earlier section (see Table 6.9).
From Table 6.16, all the three recommended Learning Experiences were reflected
in the Secondary Two textbooks series.
Fan and Zhu (2000) lamented that technology is not heavily used in the Singapore
Secondary school textbooks (lower secondary) that they analysed. We found this not
to be the case for the current set of textbooks that we analysed. Most of the Learning
Experiences recommended in the curriculum document or the syllabus included the
use of technology (such as using spreadsheets, the AlgeToolsTM ) to aid in learning
of the algebra concepts.
6 Representation of Algebra Concepts in Singapore Secondary … 123

Table 6.14 Number of types of “looking back” components

Phase 4 discovering discovering New Syllabus discovering New Syllabus
Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics
1A 1B 1 (7th 2A 2 (7th
edition) edition)
Can you 6 0 1 19 4
check the
result? Can
you check the
argument?
Can you 1 0 1 3 4
derive the
result
differently?
Can you use 1 0 1 5 5
the result, or
the method,
for some
other
problem?
Can you 0 0 0 1 0
derive the
result
differently?
Can you use
the result, or
the method,
for some
other
problem?

Table 6.15 Number of problems in the Secondary One textbooks that reflect the learning experi-
ences
Learning experiences discovering discovering New Syllabus
Mathematics 1A (2nd Mathematics 1B (2nd Mathematics 1 (7th
edition) edition) edition)
(a) 1 0 1
(b) 2 0 4
(c) 3 0 5
(d) 1 0 1
(e) 0 0 0
(f) 0 10 8
124 S. Y. Ho and T. L. Toh

Table 6.16 Number of problems in the Secondary Two textbooks that reflect the learning experi-
ences
Reflected under learning discovering Mathematics 2A New Syllabus Mathematics 2
experiences (2nd edition) (7th edition)
(a) 4 26
(b) 5 3
(c) 5 0

6.7 Conclusions and Implications

In conclusion, we think that the two series of textbooks do present a good foundation
for students to develop algebraic reasoning. The two series contain many examples
of problems involving the fundamental knowledge of algebraic concepts and skills.
This is a strong point of these two series of textbooks—practice with understanding.
Jacques Hadamard, a distinguished French mathematician, in his inspiring book,
The Mathematician’s Mind: The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field,
emphasises the need to work hard in order to learn as much as one can about the prob-
lem before any form of creativity could arise. In a similar vein, in order to achieve the
twenty-first century competencies as stipulate in the Singapore Secondary Mathe-
matics syllabus, that is having the capacity to think logically, abstractly, critically and
creatively, students first need to learn the value of reflective practice, that is simply
put, practice with understanding.
Like many other textbooks, these two series of textbooks can also be improved in
some other aspects. Here, we present one more suggestion for improvement.
The separate sections that introduce and explain Polya’s 4-phase problem-solving
processes in the textbooks may possibly reflect the textbook author’s formalistic
views of what problem solving entails. This echoes the views of Fan and Zhu’s
(2007). Polya’s problem-solving model is a useful tool especially when the problem
solver is not able to progress successfully during problem solving. We recommend
all four phases be integrated into the problems so that students have a more complete
understanding of Polya’s problem-solving model.
On a similar note, we also note the separation of real-world context problems
from the main topic chapters. Since problem solving is part and parcel of real life,
we recommend embedding real-world context problems into the main topic chapters
allowing students to connect their learning of mathematics to things around them,
thereby giving them opportunities to use their mathematical knowledge to reason
logically and communicate effectively. All these help to enhance students’ “under-
standing of key mathematical concepts and methods as well as develop mathematical
competencies” (CPDD, 2012).
Textbooks have commonly been regarded by many educational researchers as part
of the intended curriculum. However, the TIMSS group of researchers proposed that
textbooks be defined as being “potentially implemented” instead (Schmidt et al.,
2001; Valverde, Bianchi, Wolfe, Schmidt, & Houang, 2002). This is because the
content that is presented in the textbooks may not entirely reflect the intentions,
6 Representation of Algebra Concepts in Singapore Secondary … 125

aims and goals of the curriculum intended by the Singapore Ministry of Education,
since textbook writers’ use their own interpretation and reflection of the intended
curriculum during the process of textbook development (Fan, 2010). In order to
ensure that the textbooks reflect the intended curriculum proposed by the Ministry of
Education, textbook writers and textbook editors’ understanding of that curriculum
needs to match exactly the intentions, aims and goals of the curriculum. This is not an
easy task. More research will be needed to look into this issue about the development
of textbooks. Further, Fan and Zhu (2000) emphasised that “an analysis of textbooks
is a necessary but not sufficient condition to understand the enacted curriculum, that
is, what takes place in actual classroom teaching” (p. 119). Future research could
look into the relationship between the use of textbooks and student achievement. For
as aptly put forth in the Singapore Secondary Mathematics curriculum document,
Ultimately, how student learns matter. (CPDD, 2012, p. 6)

References

Chow, W. K. (2013a). Discovering mathematics (2nd edition) 1A. Singapore: Star Publishing Pte
Ltd.
Chow, W. K. (2013b). Discovering mathematics (2nd edition) 1B. Singapore: Star Publishing Pte
Ltd.
Chow, W. K. (2014). Discovering mathematics (2nd edition) 2A. Singapore: Star Publishing Pte
Ltd.
Curriculum Planning and Development Division. (2012). Mathematics syllabus secondary one to
four normal (technical) course. Singapore: Ministry of Education.
Days, H. C., Wheatley, G. H., & Kulm, G. (1979). Problem structure, cognitive level, and problem-
solving performance. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 10(2), 135–146.
Fan, L. (2010). Principles and processes for publishing textbooks and alignment with standards: A
case in Singapore. Paper presented in the APEC conference on replicating exemplary practices
in mathematics education, Koh Samui, Thailand.
Fan, L. H., & Zhu, Y. (2000). Problem solving in Singaporean secondary mathematics textbooks.
The Mathematics Educator, 5(1), 117–141.
Fan, L. H., & Zhu, Y. (2007). Representation of problem-solving procedures: A comparative look
at China, Singapore, and US mathematics textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 6,
61–75.
Hembree, R. (1992). Experiments and relational studies in problem solving: A meta-analysis. Jour-
nal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(3), 242–273.
Lester, F. K. (1978). Mathematical problem solving in the elementary school: Some educational and
psychological considerations. In L. L. Hatfield & D. A. Bradband (Eds.), Mathematical problem
solving: Papers from a research workshop. Columbus, Ohio: ERIC/SMEAC.
Lester, F. K. (1980). Research on mathematical problem. In R. J. Shunway (Ed.), Research in
mathematics education (pp. 286–323). Reston, Virginia: NCTM.
Ministry of Education (MOE). (2000). Mathematics syllabuses: Lower secondary. Singapore:
Author.
Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2010). MOE to enhance learning of 21st century competencies
and strengthen art, music and physical education. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/
news/press-releases/moe-to-enhance-learning-of-21st-century-competencies-and-strengthen-
art–music-and-physical-education.
126 S. Y. Ho and T. L. Toh

Ministry of Education (MOE). (2012). The teaching and learning of ‘O’ Level, N(A) level & N(T)
Level mathematics. Singapore: Author.
Ng, S. F. (2012). Fostering algebraic reasoning: Getting a head start. Singapore: Alston Publishing
House Pte Ltd.
Polya, G. (1954). How to solve it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H., Wiley, D. E., & Cogan, L. S. (2001).
Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Sim, M. (2014, February 5). Singapore maths makes its way to South America. The Straits
Times. Retrieved from http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-maths-makes-its-way-
to-south-america.
Teng, A. (2014, October 23). Singapore maths is travelling the world. The Straits Times. Retrieved
from http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/singapore-maths-is-travelling-the-world.
Tham, Y.-C. (2014, December 1). British minister gives thumbs up to Singapore textbooks. The
Straits Times. Retrieved from http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/british-minister-
gives-thumbs-up-to-singapore-textbooks.
Toh, T. L., Quek, K. S., & Tay, E. G. (2008). Mathematical problem solving—A new paradigm. In
J. Vincent, R. Pierce, & J. Dowsey (Eds.), Connected maths: MAV yearbook 2008 (pp. 356–365).
Melbourne: The Mathematical Association of Victoria.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2002). According
to the book. Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world
of textbooks. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Wong, K. Y. (2016). Enriching secondary mathematics education with 21st century competencies. In
P. C. Toh & B. Kaur (Eds.), Developing 21st century competencies in the mathematics classroom.
Singapore: World Scientific.
Yeo, J., The, K. S., Loh, C. Y., Chow, I., Neo, C. M., & Liew, J. (2013). New syllabus mathematics
1 (7th ed.). Singapore: Shinglee Publishers Pte Ltd.
Yeo, J., The, K. S., Loh, C. Y., Chow, I., Neo, C. M., & Liew, J. (2014). New syllabus mathematics
2 (7th ed.). Singapore: Shinglee Publishers Pte Ltd.

Siew Yin Ho was a lecturer at the Singapore National Institute of Education from December 2008
to August 2010 after she completed her Ph.D. in Nanyang Technological University, specialis-
ing on primary mathematics education. She moved on to Australia to work as a post-doctoral
research fellow in the Australia. In 2016–2017, she worked as a Research Associate in the Singa-
pore National Institute of Education.

Tin Lam Toh is an Associate Professor and the Deputy Head of Mathematics and Mathematics
Academic Group at the Singapore National Institute of Education. He was a classroom teacher
and obtained a Ph.D. (Mathematics) at the National University of Singapore. He continues to do
research in both Mathematics and Mathematics Education, and publishes extensively in interna-
tional refereed journals in both Mathematics and Mathematics Education.
Chapter 7
Current Mathematics Curriculum
of South Korea and Its Embodiment
into Textbooks

Hee-chan Lew

Abstract The Korean-revised school mathematics curriculum 2011 focuses on nur-

turing students’ mathematical creativity and mathematical attitude. This new cur-
riculum emphasizes contextual learning so that students can grasp basic mathemat-
ical concepts and make connections with their everyday lives. This curriculum also
encourages the use of activities through which students may attain an intuitive idea
of what they are learning and enhances their creativity and reasoning to justify math-
ematical results based on their knowledge and experience. On the other hand, the
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) announced a policy on
advanced mathematics education on January in 2012 to improve Korean students’
low interest, value, and confidence in mathematics sharply compared with their high-
est grades at international mathematics tests like TIMSS and PISA. This policy has
led textbook revision procedure of 2012 and 2013 to emphasize activities using var-
ious educational tools and technology, to carry out STEAM to promote interest and
understanding and to develop integrated thinking ability, to create friendly and fun
mathematics textbooks based on materials of real life and storytelling. This paper
provides a detailed overview of the main challenges of the current high school cur-
riculum and discusses how these challenges have been embodied into textbooks both
successfully in some parts and unsatisfactorily in the other parts.

7.1 Current School Mathematics Curriculum

7.1.1 Key Feature

One of the most important matters for “future-oriented” society is to nurture youth
equipped with creativity and sound personality. The future-oriented education should
be designed to help students become not only more creative and competent in their

H. Lew (B)
Korea National University of Education, Cheongju, South Korea
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 127

C. P. Vistro-Yu and T. L. Toh (eds.), School Mathematics Curricula,
Mathematics Education – An Asian Perspective,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6312-2_7
128 H. Lew

work, but also more rational and sensible so that they can be more considerate towards
others and comply with the rules and order of the society.
In mathematics education, those competencies are believed to be fostered by
learning and practicing the mathematical process including mathematical reasoning,
problem-solving, and mathematical communication. Focused on creativity and per-
sonality, the 2011 revised Korean current mathematics curriculum rejects learning by
rote and emphasizes contextual learning through operational activities with technol-
ogy and manipulatives, and the connection between mathematics and the real world,
and self-directed problem-solving, reasoning, and justification by utilizing students’
intuitive understanding, established knowledge and thinking skills (Lew, Cho, Koh,
Koh, & Paek, 2012 ).
The new goal of the curriculum is to cultivate students with a creative and
autonomous mind by achieving the following three main aims (MEST, 2011): To
promote the understanding of mathematical concepts, principles, and rules and to
improve mathematical problem-solving ability and communication skills so that stu-
dents will be able to solve a variety of problems with a creative and sensible mind, and
to build a good personality and attitude. The current curriculum asks students first to
understand basic mathematical concepts and principles through concrete experiences
using various manipulative materials and the use of daily life phenomena related to
mathematics; second, to foster mathematical modeling abilities through the solving
of various real-life problems posed within and without mathematics; third, to keep
a positive attitude about mathematics and mathematics learning by emphasizing a
connection between mathematics and the real world.

7.1.2 History of Its Transition

Since 1955 when the first curriculum was issued, the Korean mathematics curricu-
lum has been revised 8 times every 5–10 years on average. But, there have been
three major revisions of the 3rd curriculum revised in 1973, 7th curriculum revised
in 1997, and the 2011 revised curriculum. In some sense, the last one is similar to
the 7th curriculum revised in 1997 of which the ultimate goal was also to cultivate
students with a creative and autonomous mind (MEHRD, 1997; Lew, 1999). How-
ever, the new curriculum focuses on developing students’ mathematical thinking and
attitude towards mathematics, to both of which were pursued in the previous curric-
ula but not accomplished even in the 2007 revised curriculum (MEST, 2012). In this
sense, the current curriculum emphasizing an application of mathematics focusing on
practical mathematics contrasts sharply with the third curriculum, which emphasized
“mathematical structure,” focusing on theoretical mathematics.
Most certainly such contrast did not occur in one instance. The third curriculum
strongly accepted the philosophy of “New Math” which was designed for reflecting
the pure mathematics that rapidly developed in the twentieth century. In the fourth
revision of the mathematics curriculum revised in 1980, contents of the third curricu-
lum were carefully selected with an emphasis on basic skills, problem-solving, and
7 Current Mathematics Curriculum of South Korea … 129

an integrative approach to school subjects. This was influenced by the back-to-basics

movement in the USA (Park, 1991).
For about 20 years after 1980, the basic position of mathematics education grad-
ually shifted to focus on the theoretical aspects to practical aspects such as problem-
solving, application, and the use of technology. The fifth curriculum was a partial
revision of the fourth curriculum which emphasized problem-solving, mathematical
activities, and attitudes of students. Elementary school mathematics textbooks of
grades 1–6 included units titled “various problems,” emphasizing various problem-
solving strategies like simplification, logical reasoning, making a figure, working
backward, etc. The sixth curriculum emphasized problem-solving even in high school
mathematics and introduced computer use into mathematics (Woo, 1992). In the
seventh mathematics curriculum, students were expected to be able to organize real-
world phenomena mathematically, to determine mathematical relations of concepts
and principles by the process of abstraction based on their own concrete operations,
to promote mathematical reasoning abilities by the way of solving various problems
using mathematical knowledge and skills they have already acquired, and finally to
acquire a positive attitude toward mathematics (Lew, 2008).
In the seventh curriculum, it was assumed that a student who fails the level transfer
test by scoring below 60% must remain at that level and take the course again. This
system converted from the past laissez-fair policy which guarantees automatic grade
promotion regardless of a student’s achievement scores to a policy which controls
level transfer according to criteria set up in advance (Lew, 1999). But, the system
in the seventh curriculum had not been enforced because of a lack of transparency
for the criteria for pass or fail and other administrative matters. In 2007, there was
a minor change in the curriculum to solve the problem of “staying back” system
caused by the seventh curriculum.
The first curriculum issued in 1955 emphasized practical problem-solving in real
life under the influence of the pragmatism guided by Dewey’s educational philos-
ophy. However, the real situation at schools was different because of lack of good
teachers to guide students’ problem-solving heuristics and of systematic sequence
of mathematical knowledge. Furthermore, the college entrance examination was not
practically oriented. As a reaction to the first curriculum, the second curriculum was
changed totally to emphasize more formal and systematic mathematics.
Table 7.1 shows the history of Korean curriculum transition with main charac-
teristics of the past curricula.

7.1.3 General Structure

Table 7.2 shows the general structure of the current curriculum (MEST, 2011). The
junior high school curriculum to be applied to the 7, 8, 9th grades is compulsory
in the sense that same contents have to be taught to all students. The curriculum
is comprised of five domains, “number and operations,” “letters and expressions,”
“functions,” “probability and statistics,” and “geometry.”
130 H. Lew

Table 7.1 History of Korean curriculum transition

Date of Main characteristics of the past curricula Overall trait
revision
1st August 1, Real-life and experience-centered curriculum Practice
1955 “Koreanization” of mathematics terms
2nd February Systematic sequence od mathematics Theoretical
15, 1963 Basic academic achievement
3rd August 31, Subject matter-centered curriculum
1973 New math movement
Mathematical structure and rigor
4th December Reflection of new math movement
31, 1981 Back-to-basics movement
Reduction of contents to be learned
Recognition of problem-solving (but, not
implemented in the curriculum)
5th March 31, Reduction of contents to be learned Transition
1987 Emphasis of problem-solving in elementary
schools
6th September Reduction of contents to be learned
30, 1992 Emphasis of problem-solving in secondary
schools computer and calculator
Various teaching and assessment methods
7th December Reduction of contents to be learned Practical
30, 1997 Mathematical power
Student-centered curriculum
Level oriented system
2007 February Reduction of contents to be learned
28, 2007 Abolition of level-oriented system

The senior high school curriculum consists of nine elective subjects of Math I,
Math II, Calculus I and Calculus II, Probability and Statistics and, Geometry and
Vector, Basic Math, Advanced Math I, and Advanced Math II. Students in the 10th,
11th, and 12th grades may opt for those according to their future selection of liberal
art, science, and vocational tracks. The elective curriculum has two kinds of selec-
tive subjects: General selective subjects designed for normal college-bound students
(Math I, Math II, Calculus I, Calculus II, Probability and Statistics, and Geometry and
Vector) and special selective subjects designed for students of special high schools
like vocational high school and science high school (Basic Math, Advanced Math I,
Advanced Math II).
7 Current Mathematics Curriculum of South Korea … 131

Table 7.2 Structure of Korean current mathematics curriculum

School Grade Compulsory Mathematics Unit Students
level system subjects
Junior 7 Compulsory Math 1 8 All
high 8 Math 2 8
9 Math 3 6
Senior 10–12 Non-compulsory Math I 5 Both of liberal art
high Math II 5 and science
Track
Probability and 5
statistics
Calculus I 5
Calculus II 5 Only science track
Geometry and 5
vector
Basic math 5 Vocational school
Advanced math I 5 Science high
Advanced math II 5 school

7.2 Contents

7.2.1 Junior High School

In order to implement the curriculum which underscores self-directed activities with

the purpose of fostering creativity and provoking mathematical attitude, the content
should be accordingly reduced due to the limited curriculum time. The 39 sections
of the former curriculum were rearranged into 29 sections in the current curriculum,
eliminating the content deemed less relevant to other topics or known to be taught
mechanically and some content was rearranged to be lightly covered. It is expected
that such changes significantly reduce students’ study load, saving some time for
creativity activities (Lew et al., 2012).
In “number and operations,” the content on set theory, binary system, and approx-
imation is removed. In “letters and expressions,” the role of letters and expressions
such as modeling everyday life is emphasized. In “functions,” the concept of functions
is more focused than ever, having students recognize them as a tool to represent rules
observed from daily phenomena. In “probability and statistics,” stem-and-leaf plots
useful in visualizing the distribution of small-sized data are introduced, and graphi-
cal representation of data is encouraged. In “geometry,” explanation or justification
activities depending on students’ levels are emphasized rather than formal proofs
with which most students experience difficulty in getting accustomed to. Table 7.3
shows the contents of grades 7, 8, and 9 in junior high school mathematics curriculum
(MEST, 2011).
132 H. Lew

Table 7.3 Contents of junior high school mathematics curriculum

Grade Big idea Main contents
7th Natural number: Prime factorization of natural number
Integer and rational number: Integer and rational number, operation of
integer and rational number
Letters and expressions: Using the letters and calculation of
expressions, solving linear equation
Function: Function and its graph
Statistics: Table of frequency distribution and its
graph
Foundation of figure Basic figures, construction and
congruence of figures
Plane figure: Properties of polygon, circle and sector
Solid figure Polyhedron and solid of revolution,
surface area and volume of solid figure
8th Rational number and repeating decimal Rational number and repeating decimal
Computation of expressions Computation of monomial, computation
of polynomial
Simultaneous equation Simultaneous equation
Inequality Linear inequality, simultaneous
inequality
Linear function Linear function and its graph, relation
between linear function and linear
equation
Probability Meaning of probability, computation of
probability
Properties of geometric figure Properties of triangle, properties of
rectangle
Similarity of geometric figure Similarity of geometric figure
9th Real number and its computation Square root and real number, computing
expressions involving radical sign
Factorization Factorization of polynomial, quadratic
equation
Quadratic equation Formula of roots and application of
quadratic equation
Quadratic function Quadratic function and its graph, the
graph of quadratic function
Statistics Representative value and dispersion
Pythagorean theorem Pythagorean theorem, application of
Pythagorean theorem
Trigonometric ratio Trigonometric ratio, application of
trigonometric ratio
Properties of circle Circle and straight line, angle at the
circumference
7 Current Mathematics Curriculum of South Korea … 133

7.2.2 Senior High School

In the former curriculum revised in 2007, senior high school math consisted of seven
subjects. The “mathematics” subject meant for tenth-grade students was included in
the National Common Basic Curriculum and was designated as an eight-unit course
(four hours per week for two semesters). At the eleventh- and twelfth-grade level,
students selected and took the courses that suit their needs depending on their future
career goals, interests, and aptitude among six 6-unit elective courses of “Calculus
and Basic Statistics,” “Math,” “Math II,” “Integrals and Statistics,” “Geometry and
Vector,” and “Practical Use of Mathematics” based on the pre-announced requirement
of college students want to enter.
However, in the 2011 reformed curriculum, each math subject was five-unit elec-
tive course, and the volume of the content was reduced by 20% to provide students
with more opportunities to pose fundamental questions and ponder upon the ratio-
nale of each theme. Through such process, students were expected to personally
experience the value of mathematics and recognize why mathematics is required and
useful in understanding and describing natural and social phenomena.
“Math I,” “Math II” includes basic content needed for covering calculus and
“Calculus I” and “Calculus II” consist of basic calculus, calculus of polynomial
functions, and calculus of transcendental functions. In addition, as the knowledge of
probability and statistics is of great importance in the modern society, “Probability
and Statistics” was provided as one independent subject, and “geometry and Vector”
has also been placed as an independent subject.
Lastly, “Intensive Math I” was designed for students to systematically understand
higher level of mathematical concepts, principles, and rules based on the mathemati-
cal knowledge and skills that they had acquired in general math. “Intensive Math II”
helps students attain higher levels of mathematical knowledge and thinking skills,
and logical reasoning abilities, giving students opportunities to develop the skills and
attitude to rationally solve problems, eventually providing them with the foundation
for future learning in the natural sciences, engineering, and social sciences. “Basic
math” was a basic course designed for students who are not equipped with a sound
foundation of middle school math; students could select this course in order to reach
a systematic understanding of fundamental mathematical concepts, principles, and
rules needed for taking the general math course.
Table 7.4 shows the contents of Math I and II, Differentiation and Integration I
and II, Probability and Statistics, Geometry and Vector, Intensive I and II and Basic
mathematics.
134 H. Lew

Table 7.4 Contents of senior high school mathematics curriculum

Subject Big idea Contents
Math I Polynomials and their Polynomial and its operation,
operation remainder theorem and
factorization
Equation and inequality Complex number and
quadratic equation
quadratic equation and
quadratic function, various
equations, various
inequalities
Equation of geometric figure Coordinate in the plane,
equation of straight line,
equation of circle,
displacement of figure,
region of inequality
Math II Set and statement Set, statement
Function Function, rational function,
and irrational function
Sequence arithmetic sequence and
geometric sequence, sum of
sequence, mathematical
induction
Exponent and logarithm Exponent, logarithm
Differentiation and integration Limit of sequence Limit of sequence, series
I Limit and continuity of Limit of function, continuity
function of a function
Differentiation of polynomial Differential coefficient and
function derivative application of
derivative
Integration of polynomial Indefinite integral, definite
function integral, application of
definite integral
Differentiation and integration Exponential function and Meaning of exponential
II logarithmic function function and logarithmic
function and their graphs,
derivative of exponential
function and logarithmic
function
Trigonometric function Meaning of trigonometric
function and its graph,
derivative of trigonometric
function
Differentiation Various differentiations,
application of derivative
Integration Various integrations,
application of definite
integral
(continued)
7 Current Mathematics Curriculum of South Korea … 135

Table 7.4 (continued)

Subject Big idea Contents
Probability and statistics’ Permutation and combination Number of cases,
permutation and combination
partition, binomial theorem
Probability Meaning and application of
probability conditional
probability, probability
distribution
Statistics Statistical estimation
Geometry and vector Plane curve Quadratic curve, tangent line
of plane curve
Plane vector Operation of vector,
component and inner product
of plane vectors, plane
movement
Space figure and space vector Space figure, coordinates in
space, space vector
Intensive math I Vector and matrix Vector, matrix, and
simultaneous linear equations
Linear transformation Linear transformation and
matrix, eigenvalue and power
of matrix
Graphs Meaning of graphs, various
graphs, application of graphs
Intensive math II Complex number and polar Polar form of complex
coordinate number, polar coordinates
and polar equation
Application of differentiation Application of
and integration differentiation, differential
equation, application of
integration, meaning of
two-variable function, limit,
and continuity
Partial differential Partial differential,
application of partial
differential
Basic math Computation of numbers and Using the letters and
expressions calculation of expressions,
computation of polynomial,
real number and its
computation,
Equation and inequality Linear equation, linear
inequality, quadratic equation
Function Linear function, quadratic
function
Pythagorean theorem Pythagorean theorem,
trigonometric ratio
136 H. Lew

7.3 A New Policy of Mathematics Education

7.3.1 Problems of Korean Mathematics Education

Despite the brilliant scores of Korean grades 4 and 8 students, the reports of TIMSS
2011 (Mullis et al., 2012) and PISA 2009 show some negative results for Korean
mathematics education. Among them, this paper reports about two issues: lack of
students’ mathematical attitude and the achievement gap induced by school locations.

7.3.1.1 Lack of Mathematical Attitude

Tables 7.5 and 7.6 show that in TIMSS 2011, Korean 4th grade and 8th grade students
were very low in percentage of mathematical attitude compared to the average of
participating nations and were the lowest among most participating countries. The
proportion of Korean 4th grade students who think themselves having the confidence
to do mathematics is 9% and are placed 49th at 50 participating countries. In addition,
the percentage of students who like learning mathematics is 23% and was ranked
at the bottom of the survey. The percentage of Korean 8th grade pupils who think
themselves having the confidence to do mathematics is 3% and was placed 38th in 42
participating countries. Furthermore, the percentage of students who liked learning
mathematics was 8% and the proportion of students who regard mathematics as a
valuable subject is 14%, ranked 41st and 40th, respectively.

7.3.1.2 Achievement Gap

Another problem of Korea is an achievement gap induced by school locations. When

the data of PISA surveys were disaggregated, it showed that urban students performed

Table 7.5 Proportions of Confidence Like learning

mathematical attitude of mathematics
Korean students (4th grade)
compared with international Korea 11% 49/50 23% 50/50
level International (%) 34 48

Table 7.6 Proportions of Confidence Like Value

mathematical attitude of learning
Korean students (8th grade) mathematics
compared with international
level Korea 3% 38/41 9% 40/41 13% 41/41
International 14 28 48
(%)
7 Current Mathematics Curriculum of South Korea … 137

Table 7.7 Korean students’ achievement scores of PISA 2003, 2006, and 2009 on 5 areas of village,
small town, town, city, and large city
Village Small town Town City Large city
PISA 2003 447 491 512 545 556
PISA 2006 484 482 523 554 554
PISA 2009 473 550 554 547

Fig. 7.1 Korean students’ achievement gap among five areas of village, small town, town, city, and
large city

much better than rural students (OECD, 2004, 2007). Table 7.7 and Fig. 7.1 show
that there were big gaps in Korean students’ achievement scores of PISA 2003, 2006,
and 2009 among 5 areas of village, small town, town, city, and large city classified
by the number of their populations.
This significant difference between urban and rural students could be the result of
an assortment of complex social factors associated with rural areas such as parents’
relative indifference toward education, less competitive educational atmosphere,
unfavourable working condition for teachers, poor educational surroundings, and
insufficient instructional materials (Kong, 2005).

7.3.2 A New Policy of Mathematics Education

The Ministry of Education, Science and Technology announced a policy on advanced

mathematics education in January 2012 (MEST, 2012). This was in response to the
fact that Korean students had a low interest, value, and confidence in mathemat-
ics even though they were ranked among the highest at international mathematics
tests. Additionally, there was also a gap of mathematics achievement depending on
students’ socioeconomic status. According to the analysis on the difference by the
team, the low achieving students seemed to come from traditional teaching methods
138 H. Lew

emphasizing, memorizing, and solving problems at the expense of understanding of

mathematical concepts. Therefore, the team provides a new policy direction whereby
mathematics education should change to more productive and to future-oriented ways
in order to promote an interest and understanding of mathematics and to develop inte-
grated thinking ability and problem-solving skills. The policy emphasises the three
key aspects that mathematics education should achieve:

7.3.2.1 Mathematics for Raising the Power to Think

• Emphasis on activities not only using blackboard and chalk but also using various
educational tools and technology.
• Continue to carry out STEAM education to promote interest and understanding
with respect to science and technology and to develop integrated thinking ability
and problem-solving skills in the real world.

7.3.2.2 Mathematics for Feeling Fun

• Create friendly and fun mathematics textbooks based on the materials of real life
and storytelling instead of traditional textbooks which have mainly consisted of
formulas and problems.
• Operate advanced classrooms only for mathematics with educational tools and
equipment for mathematical experiences in order to open possibilities to make
teaching and learning mathematics fun. The classrooms will be expanded to all
school levels. In other words, they will be experiencing play-oriented mathematics
classrooms at elementary school level, but mostly consist of exploring debate-
centred classrooms at the secondary school level.

7.3.2.3 Mathematics for Being Together

• Commit to further efforts on guiding parents through mathematics classes for

them about changes in current mathematics education and instructional directions
of mathematics.
• Send local college students in majoring mathematics as a mentor to areas with low
grades on mathematics, which will help to reduce gaps of students’ mathematics
achievement between areas.
• Set up and operate mathematic clinics via online to deal with mathematics achieve-
ment, aptitude, learning-method, and career counseling.
7 Current Mathematics Curriculum of South Korea … 139

7.4 Embodiment of Curriculum and Policy into Textbook

7.4.1 Principle of Textbook Publishing

In Korea, a publishing company invites an editing team consisting of university

professors and teachers who participate to develop textbooks. Because each textbook
is to be endorsed by the government, publishing companies and textbook authors
try to pass the authorizing process by incorporating a variety of approaches and
editing skills. The textbook authors should conform to the national curriculum and
the publishing regulation set by the government. Particularly, the regulation asks
authors to present and organize contents with special emphasis on the following
traits based on the national curriculum and government policy:
• Textbooks should emphasize the usefulness of mathematics concepts through inte-
grating various natural and social phenomena and mathematics so that students
can appreciate the usefulness of mathematics in their own life. STEAM (science,
technology, engineering, art, and mathematics) should be actively introduced in
the textbook.
• Textbooks should provide various activities using ICT-like calculators and com-
puters for increasing students’ conceptual understanding.
• Textbooks should provide various activities to induce student’s thinking such as
communication, reasoning, connection, problem-solving, and justification.
• Textbooks should develop the context as fun and easy to understand so that students
learn basic knowledge and skills easily. Storytelling description should be actively
introduced.
Although the above criteria could restrict textbook writers’ autonomy, it might be
a device by which government-driven educational reform policy and practice could
be implemented. In addition, it is also a powerful way of maintaining the basic quality
of textbooks. Authors who fail an initial evaluation may resubmit for government’s
approval, because only those approved by the appraisal committee can be published
and used as textbooks in Korean secondary schools.
The junior high school textbooks based on the 2011 revised curriculum were
published in 2012 and have been used from 2013, and the senior high school textbooks
were published in 2013 and used from 2014.

7.4.2 General Structure of Korean Textbooks

Most of the Korean textbooks consist of the following four steps to make the learning
efficient: Introduction of Unit—Introduction of Chapter—Sections—End of Chap-
ter—End of Unit (e.g., Lew et al., 2012, 2013) shown in Table 7.8.
 140

Table 7.8 Structure of Korean high school textbooks

Introduction of unit Introduction of chapter Sections End of chapter End of unit
• Motivational information • Objectives of chapter • Pre-activity corners to • Conceptual laying down • Integrated
• Objectives of the unit • Mathematical exploration understand roughly • Synthesizing exercise problem-solving of
contents to be learned • Creative problem-solving contents learned in the unit
• Explanation of contents • Mathematical laboratory
with examples with computers
• Exercises • History of mathematics
• After-activity corners for • Job introduction related
communication, with mathematics
problem-solving, • Small group project
reasoning, and connection
H. Lew
7 Current Mathematics Curriculum of South Korea … 141

In the introduction of each unit, most of all textbooks put in “motivational phase”
and show “learning objectives” of the unit so that students can understand roughly
mathematical contents which they are going to learn in the unit. In the introduction of
each chapter, the textbooks also provide a special column for “Mathematical explo-
ration” as pre-activities which promote interest and motivation of learning relevant
to the chapter. In each section, most of all textbooks provide pre-activity to make
students understand roughly knowledge and skills before students learn them system-
atically. After contents are explained systematically with examples and exercises, the
textbooks present various activity sections with communication, problem-solving,
reasoning, and connection. At the end of each chapter, the textbooks provide vari-
ous kinds of special corner for conceptual understanding, creative problem-solving,
mathematical laboratory with computers and calculators, history of mathematics, job
introduction, and small group activities related with mathematics to promote inter-
est, wide perspective, and insight about mathematics. Finally, the textbooks provide
integrated problem-solving of contents learned in the unit.

7.4.3 Embodiment of STEAM

Most of the textbooks use “STEAM” (Science Technology Engineering Arts and
Mathematics) as a component to encourage students to appreciate mathematics as a
useful tool for exploring the real life surrounding them. The exploration activities help
students learn mathematical contents meaningfully through the materials related to
science, technology, engineering, and art. There are various types of STEAM: “Pre-
activity type” before learning concepts, “after-activity type” to lay down concepts
learned, “exercise type” to use STEAM materials. The following two examples show
a “before activity type” to connect mathematics and engineering, and mathematics
and art, respectively.

An example of connection between mathematics and engineering: The process

to close the camera diaphragm gives an opportunity to explore the sum of exterior
angles of polygon. Although the sides of the hexagon change in length, the size of
exterior angles of hexagon does not change. The six exterior angles of hexagon meet
one point and become a plane. These let students conjecture that the sum of exterior
angles of hexagon is 360°.
142 H. Lew

How to get the sum of exterior angles of polygon?

The process of closing the aperture is as follows. Answer the following ques-
tions.
(1) Does the size of exterior angles of hexagon change from (a) to (d)?
(2) When the aperture is closed, it is like (e). Conjecture the sum of exterior
angles of hexagon using this.

An example of connection between mathematics and art: “Proportions from

Vitruvius’s De Architectura” of Leonardo da Vinci helps students explore the notion
of arc and chord. Through exploration activity, students can familiarize themselves
with terms like arc and chord.

What is a sector?
Right picture is “Proportions from Vitruvius’s De Architectura” of Leonardo
da Vinci (1452–1519). Answer the following questions.
(1) Express two parts of circle divided by points A and B with different colors.
(2) Draw the shortest straight line connecting the points C and D.

7.4.4 The Implementation of Storytelling in Textbook

Kwon et al. (2012) suggest five kinds of storytelling types related to contents of story:
“history exploration,” “real-life connection,” “subjects blended,” “decision making,”
7 Current Mathematics Curriculum of South Korea … 143

and “tool application.” Most of the textbooks provide various materials of all the
five types of story contexts. There are other ways of categorizing story development
in the textbooks: continuous type and discrete type. Continuous type is one to use
the same story on some pages of one section or one chapter, and the discrete type
uses only one page for the story. The following example (Lew et al., 2012) shows
“real-life connection” and continuous type, consisting three phases of story: opening,
intermediate, closing.

7.4.4.1 Example of “Real Life Connection” and Continuous Type

of Story Telling

Opening story: This phase is located in the introduction of each chapter and tells a
story related to learning content of the chapter and shows a task in which the students
are able to solve after learning the chapter in the form of cartoon. For example, in
the “Congruence” chapter of “Construction and Congruence” unit of seventh-grade
textbook (Lew et al., 2012), a story about a restoration of stained glass is introduced
and suggests thinking what is needed to restore. Students can conjecture to use the
length of sides and size of angles since the form of desecrated part of stained glass
is triangle.

Stained glass consists of pieces of glass of different colors which are fixed
together to make decorative windows or other objects. This is more beautiful
when the light is transmitted.
Jung Min is talking with artist who is restoring the desecrated stained glass.
Artist: Now, restoration will be finished if the triangular part of desecrated
stained glass is replaced.
Jung Min: To draw a triangle which is congruent with the desecrated part of
stained glass, how to do?
Artist: You can use the side and angle of triangle.

Intermediate Story: This phase allows the students to reflect on their mid-process
of problem-solving which was presented at the opening story. Let students construct
a triangle in congruence with a broken triangle of the stained glass (stained-glass
144 H. Lew

window). This activity enables the students to solve the problem by using the contents
that are being taught in the story. In this process, students solve the task by using
triangle-determining conditions and the contents that were taught in the textbook.

You want to restore a broken triangle of a stained-glass window in the picture

below with construction. Construct a triangle in congruence with the yellow
triangle.

Closing the Story: Through the task solving at opening the story with the contents
taught in the unit, students have learned to connect what they have been taught in
the classroom with mathematic-related problems in the real world. Constructing a
congruent figure to restore a broken stained-glass window is introduced.

Since the use of colored glass in ancient Egypt, stained glass was used a lot to
decorate buildings. Especially, the skill of stained glass production reached its
peak in the Middle Ages so that many beautiful works were made and are well
preserved to this day.
However, due to the nature of glass, stained glass is prone to be damaged, and
it requires to be restored. To do so, one must be able to make a glass panel in
congruence with the damaged part. This can be done by either constructing a
congruent figure or making a pattern out of transparent paper.
7 Current Mathematics Curriculum of South Korea … 145

The following example (Lew et al., 2012) shows “decision-making” and “discrete
type” of storytelling. Students think that the Earth is divided into twenty-four time
zones which are measured from a starting point centered at the Royal Observatory,
Greenwich. Time zones to the east of the Royal Observatory are later and times to the
west of it are earlier. Through this example, students learn about the use of negative
numbers for representation.

The following is a brief outline of Around the World in Eighty Days, a novel by
Jules Verne. Fogg of London, England got interested in an article saying one
can travel around the world in just 80 days. Trusting the article, Fogg decided
to attempt to circumnavigate the world in 80 days on a £20,000 wager and left
London. Via India, Hong Kong, Japan, and USA, Fogg arrived at Liverpool,
England. On arriving, he was arrested for a bank robbery suspect by a detective.
On the very 80th day, the actual robber got caught and Fogg got released. Fogg
thought even if he had departed right away, he would have returned to London,
the final destination, late. However, he figured out that the day he thought as
the 80th day was the 79th day in London. He arrived just in time to win the
wager.
• Why Fogg thought that he was late?
• What happened in the difference of one day?

Kwon et al. (2012) show that Korean teachers are familiar with storytelling with
low interest level. Although most of the Korean textbooks introduce the use of sto-
rytelling as pedagogy, their quality of the story is not deemed to be able to raise the
students’ interest. Furthermore, teachers’ guide book and in-service education for
developing efficient teaching method and assessment methodology related to story-
telling are not provided sufficiently. These are big challenges for Korean textbook
authors and mathematics educators. However, at this moment, it is believed that this
kind of textbook change give us a momentum to change the learning circumstance
in that it is difficult to accommodate some system after equipping all preparation.
146 H. Lew

7.4.4.2 Embodiment of Technology

Lew, Cho, Choi, and Jeong (2012) identified the framework for analyzing the role of
technology based on Chua and Wu (2005, p. 390), which is shown in Table 7.9.
Most of the Korean textbooks provide materials of all the categories described in
Table 7.9. For example, Fig. 7.2 shows an example of “E” in the unit of functions,
which is introduced mostly in all textbooks. This activity is aimed at identifying the
features of the functions such as y = ax(a = 0) and y = ax (a = 0, x = 0). Students
can find that the graphs are all laid on the first and third quadrants of the coordinates
when a > 0 and conversely on the second and fourth quadrants when a < 0. In
addition, students will be able to grasp/understand that all graphs of y = ax(a = 0)
pass through zero, and the more the absolute value of a are high, the more the graph
gets near to y-axis. Also, in the graphs of y = ax (a = 0, x = 0), the higher the
absolute value of ais, the farther the graph is from zero.
Figure 7.3 shows an example of “E-C” students construct a triangle, compute
the sum of all the internal angles of the triangle, and then conjecture whether the
sum keeps 180° during changing a shape of the triangle. After that, they construct
a quadrilateral and do it the same way as they did in the activity of triangle. These
activities are extended to various kinds of polygons.
There were a few activities of “E-C-V” in the junior and senior secondary text-
books. In Fig. 7.4, for example, students draw the graph of “y = sin x” by entering
the expression into the input window in the program. While changing the point of
contact of the graph, they may examine how the tangent line is changed and con-
jectures the derivative. Then they can draw the derivative of “y = sin x” exactly by
using the function “drawing the graph of a derivative” of the software used, and ver-
ify visually that the derivative is “y = cos x” by dynamically examining the change
of the tangent line. Actually, the fact that the derivative of “y = sin x” is cosine
is one of the most challenging issues for the students to understand. However, by

Table 7.9 Framework of role of technology

Role Description of analysis
E Students merely perform a given task by using technology according to instructions,
and they are not allowed opportunities to come up with mathematical ideas or to
identify mathematical concept for themselves
E-C After students perform a given task by using technology according to instructions,
they conjecture mathematical concept based on their intuition or exploration
E-V After students perform a given task by using technology according to instructions,
they directly verify mathematical concept visually through the exploration without
process of conjecturing the concept
E-C-V After students perform a given task by using technology according to instructions,
they conjecture mathematical concept based on their intuition or exploration, and
verify the conjecture
C-E-V After students conjecture mathematical idea in a given task, they verify the idea
through exploration
7 Current Mathematics Curriculum of South Korea … 147

allowing students to experience the processes like Fig. 7.4, they can visualize abstract
mathematical ideas.
In Korean high school textbooks, exploring E and E-C is used far more frequently
than other activities of E-V, E-C-V, and C-E-V, which means that it is not easy to find
good examples whose educational quality is satisfied. Computers are needed in order
to reduce a gap between concreteness and abstraction for teaching mathematics of
which objects are abstract, to ease a technical difficulty in solving problems or in the
modeling process or to strengthen understanding through linking between different
representations or to make mathematics more interesting. In this sense, computer
technology seems not to be used properly in Korean textbooks. One reason is that
some content to be taught with computers in the curriculum can also be taught without
computer. Rather, computer should be used substantially in mathematics curriculum
in the sense that computer activities, value-add the learning process compared to the
traditional paper-and-pencil environment.

The graphs of , The graphs of ,

Fig. 7.2 Example of “E” role of technology

Find the sum of all the internal angles of triangle

Find the sum of all the external angles of quadrilateral
Find the sum of all internal and external angles of the polygons by using computer program

Fig. 7.3 Example of “E-C” role of technology

148 H. Lew

Fig. 7.4 Example of “E-C-V” role of technology

7.5 Conclusion

This paper introduces the new challenges in the 2011 revised high school curriculum
of South Korea. The main focus is to nurture the later generations with mathe-
matical creativity and character through the development of mathematical thinking
as well as mathematical attitude. This is related to the national strategy to con-
struct a highly developed country in the near future: Mathematics provides tools for
propelling the development of science and for solving quantitative and qualitative
problems faced by people in their lives. To use these tools properly in appropriate
situations, the future-oriented new school mathematics curriculum emphasizes the
connections between mathematics and everyday life, manipulation activities with
materials including computer technology, and justification activities to help others
understand one’s arguments or beliefs. Korean mathematics educators have set upon
themselves the specific educational objective of providing students with proper math-
ematical thinking experiences to achieve an understanding of mathematical processes
and also develop a sound mathematical attitude.
The Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) announced the pol-
icy on advanced mathematics education on January in 2012 to improve Korean stu-
dents’ low interest, value, and confidence in mathematics sharply compared with
their highest grades at international mathematics tests like TIMSS and PISA. This
policy has led textbook development towards the direction to emphasize activities
using various educational technologies like computers and calculators, to carry out
STEAM to encourage students to understand that mathematics is a useful tool for
exploring the real life surrounding them, and storytelling as a component to create
friendly and fun mathematics textbooks.
This paper shows some examples of embodiment of STEAM and storytelling and
technology used in the Korean secondary school textbooks developed in 2012 and
2013. In the textbooks, there are various types of STEAM: “Pre-activity type” before
leaning concepts, “after-activity type” to lay down concepts learned, “exercise type”
to use STEAM materials. In addition, there are various content types of storytelling
like “history exploration,” “real life connection,” “subjects blended,” “decision mak-
ing,” “tool application” with two types of story development like continuous and
7 Current Mathematics Curriculum of South Korea … 149

discrete. Furthermore, most of all textbooks provide various technology activities

of exploring (E), exploring-conjecture (E-C), exploring-verifying (E-V), exploring-
conjecturing-verifying (E-C-V), conjecturing-exploring-verifying (C-E-V).
Korean teachers are familiar with storytelling but their interesting level is not high
enough. The quality of the stories in the textbooks is not satisfactory to teachers who
want to increase their students’ mathematical attitude. Related with the computer
use, E and E-C are used far more frequently than other activities of E-V, E-C-V,
C-E-V, which means that it is not easy to find good examples whose educational
quality is satisfied.
This change in curriculum and textbooks took place in the context of strong
governmental intent for educational reform. It is since the 7th curriculum that we have
experienced such a strong external pressure for change. The Korean government and
mathematics education community recognize that mathematics is the most important
and almost a unique resource for its people to both develop and cope with a society
of the twenty-first century. Nobody knows this change will succeed, but it can be
justified with respect to emphasizing the role of mathematics as a tool for creative
thinking and good personality for all under the viewpoints of social development.

References

Chua, B. L., & Wu, Y. (2005). Designing technology-based mathematics lessons: A pedagogical
framework. Journal of Computer in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(4), 387–402.
Kong, K. (2005). The analyses and remedies of educational conditions in rural communities (Thesis
of Graduate School of Public Administration). Gyungsang National University (in Korean).
Kwon, O. N., et al. (2012). High school mathematics teacher’s conception of mathematics textbooks
based on storytelling. Mathematics Education, 51(3), 223–246.
Lew, H. C. (1999). New goals and directions for mathematics education in Korea. In C. Hoyles,
C. Morgan, & G. Woodhouse (Eds.), Rethinking the mathematics curriculum (pp. 218–217).
London: Palmer Press.
Lew, H. C. (2008). Some characteristics of the Korean national curriculum and its revision process.
In Z. Usiskin & E. Willmore (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum in pacific rim countries—China,
Japan, Korea. Singapore: Information Age Publishing.
Lew, H. C., Cho, W. Y., Koh, Y., Koh, H. K., & Paek, J. (2012), New challenge in the new mid-
dle school curriculum of South Korea: Mathematical process and mathematical attitude. ZDM
Mathematics Education, 44(2), 109–119.
Lew, H. C., Cho, M. S., Choi, Y. R., Jeong, S. Y. (2012). Analysis of roles and kinds of technol-
ogy presented in Korean secondary mathematics textbooks. In Proceedings of the 17th Asian
Technology Conference in Mathematics.
Lew, H. C., Ryu, S. R., Lee, K. H., & Shin, B. M. (2012). Mathematics 1, 2, 3. Seoul: Chon Jae
Publishing Company.
Lew, H. C., Cho, W. Y., Lee, J. R., Sunwoo, H. S., Lee, J. H., Son, H. C., & Shin, B. M. (2013).
Mathematics I, II. Seoul: Chon Jae Publishing Company.
Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development. (1997). Mathematics curriculum. Seoul:
The author (in Korean).
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2012, January 11). Policy on advanced mathe-
matics education (in Korean).
150 H. Lew

Ministry of Education, Sceince and Technology. (2011). Mathematics curriculum. Seoul: The author
(in Korean).
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). Chestnut hill. MA: TIMSS & PIRLS
International Study Center, Boston College.
OECD. (2004). Learning for tomorrows’ world: First results from PISA 2003. Organization for
Economy and Cooperation and Development.
OECD. (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world. Organization for Economy
and Cooperation and Development.
Park, H. S. (1991). Historical development of mathematics education in Korea. In J. H. Woo (Ed.),
Proceedings of the Korea/US Seminar on Comparative Analysis of Mathematics Education in
Korea and the United States (pp. 1–25). Seoul: Korea Society of Educational Studies in Mathe-
matics.
Woo, J. H. (1992). A Korean perspective on mathematics education. Journal of the Korea Society
of Educational Studies in Mathematics, 2(1), 119–131.

Hee-Chan Lew is President of Korea National University of Education. He began his career as
Professor at the same university in 1991. He received an Ed.D. (Mathematics Education) at Tem-
ple University after graduation from Seoul National University in 1980. He is the author of high
school mathematics textbooks intensively used in Korea and more than 100 articles based on
research projects on teaching methods and computer technology in mathematics education.
Chapter 8
Research and Development
of Mathematics-Grounding Activity
Modules as a Part of Curriculum
in Taiwan

Fou-Lai Lin and Yu-Ping Chang

Abstract In order to develop meaningful mathematics activities for students to

enjoy learning and to improve their learning, the mathematics-grounding activity
(MGA) modules are developed as part of the JUST DO MATH project which has
been funded by the Taiwanese Ministry of Education since 2014. The project consists
of three phases: (1) research and development of the MGA modules; (2) cascading to
include more teachers and designers; and (3) dissemination to students in Mathemat-
ics Camps. The evaluation of the project is still ongoing. Both student feedback and
teacher feedback are collected during the MGA modules. At the current stage, data
from both qualitative and quantitative results show significant positive influence.

8.1 Background of Meaningful Learning: JUST DO MATH

as a Precursor of Curriculum Development

In this section, we introduce the need to develop a mathematics curriculum for

meaningful learning in Taiwan and how we will begin and continue developing the
curriculum with the JUST DO MATH (JDM) project as a precursor. This island-wide
project is supported and funded by the Ministry of Education since mid-2014.

8.1.1 The Present Problems in Mathematics Teaching

and Learning in Taiwan

International comparative studies of students’ mathematics assessments show that

Taiwanese students outperform in the assessments; however, they also reveal sev-
eral severe educational problems in Taiwan regarding students’ cognitive and non-
cognitive performances (Lin, 2015). For example, PISA 2012 (OECD, 2014) shows

F.-L. Lin (B) · Y.-P. Chang

National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan
e-mail: [email protected]
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 151
C. P. Vistro-Yu and T. L. Toh (eds.), School Mathematics Curricula,
Mathematics Education – An Asian Perspective,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6312-2_8
152 F.-L. Lin and Y.-P. Chang

Table 8.1 Percentage of Taiwanese students’ low attitude in TIMSS 2007 and 2011
Grades Attitude
Not confident in Do not value Do not like learning
mathematics (low SCM) mathematics (low SVM) mathematics (low PATM)
2007 2011 2007 2011 2007 2011
4th (Int. 27% 38% – – 29% 32%
Avg.) (11%) (21%) (14%) (16%)
8th (Int. 46% 67% 16% (5%) 46% 45% 53%
Avg.) (20%) (41%) (15%) (26%) (31%)

the extreme polarization of Taiwanese students’ proficiency in mathematics. 12.8%

of low achievers (below level 2) are in mathematics, and 37.2% of high achievers
(level 5 or 6) are in mathematics. The international average of low achievers is 23.0%
and of high achievers is 12.6%. In contrast to the international average, though the
percentage of low achievers in Taiwan is relatively less, the percentage is the highest
among the top seven Asian countries/economies: Shanghai, Singapore, Hong Kong,
Taiwan, Korea, Macao, and Japan. The other example are the international TIMSS
2007 and 2011 studies (Martin et al., 2008; Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Arora, 2012; see
Table 8.1). This report found that Taiwanese students’ poor attitude in mathematics
is seriously increasing in not only the 8th graders but also the 4th graders. In TIMSS
2007, investigation of students’ attitudes included the students’ positive affect toward
mathematics (PATM), students’ valuing of mathematics (SVM), and students’ self-
confidence in learning mathematics (SCM). Taiwanese students showed a low PATM
in 4th and 8th grades; low SVM in 8th grade; and low SCM in 4th and 8th grades.
In 2011, the situation seems to be getting worse; students of the 4th and 8th grades
responded that they do not like learning mathematics, do not value mathematics (only
the 8th graders), and were not confident in mathematics.
The problematic factors of students’ cognitive polarization and their low attitudes
in mathematics alerted the Ministry of Education (MOE) to the seriousness of stu-
dents’ learning in Taiwan. In order to remedy low achievers’ disadvantaged learning,
the government has invested abundant energy and money in the latest decade to pro-
vide after-school lessons for those low achievers. However, in the released results
of periodic international assessments, the effect of this government investment was
found to have been very limited. Reflecting on this lack of success has motivated
our study of the possible causes of the basic learning problems of these low achiev-
ers. Since the extra classes and teaching input given to these low-achiever students
have not resulted in any significant improvement, we propose the hypothesis that this
ineffectiveness might come from the improper curricular materials provided to the
students. Since in Taiwan, students’ achievement levels are not streamed into separate
classes for learning, all students receive the same materials and are expected to finish
the same mathematics content requirements. This is done for reasons of equality.
However, it is therefore a serious challenge for those students of low achievement to
understand the heavy content, and it is also a challenge for those high achievers to
8 Research and Development of Mathematics-Grounding … 153

learn what may be for them relatively easy content. In brief, the learning materials
might either be at the right level or too easy for those high achievers, but may still
create barriers in learning mathematics for those low achievers.
Considering the long-term sequential learning process of mathematics subjects, it
would be problematic if students, especially the low achievers, fail in previous learn-
ing. They might not easily continue to learn if they do not have a strong grounding in
the preceding content learning and if they have low attitudes to learning. Moreover,
curriculum design involves dialogue between various experts, from content to peda-
gogy, and these experts rarely have the opportunity to meet and work together. How
we can make sure that students’ received curriculum content is what was intended for
them to learn? Since the process of mathematics learning is sequential, the connec-
tions between the various components in the curriculum become major educational
challenges. To solve the these problems, we first intend to discuss the gaps in cur-
ricular connections by presenting curricular standards and materials in Taiwan, and
then by presenting how we suggest reducing these gaps in curricular connection. It
is proposed that the solution to the dilemma of grounding students’ mathematical
notions and the improvement of their learning attitudes lies within the JDM project.

8.1.2 Gaps in School Curriculum

The curriculum refers to the specific sequential content for teaching and learning,
and the learning opportunities are embedded in its sequence (Schmidt et al., 2001).
It is commonly known that the tripartite curriculum model (Garden, 1987; Robitaille
et al., 1993; Valverde, Bianchi, Wolfe, Schmidt, & Houang, 2002) is composed of
three different roles of curriculum design: the intended curriculum, the implemented
curriculum, and the attained curriculum. As Schmidt and colleagues contend, the
curriculum exists as sequential plans and intentions that one wishes students to expe-
rience and learn. This is what we know as the intended curriculum. Second, there
also exist patterns of classroom activities that are meant to implement those plans
and to provide students the intended learning opportunities. This is what we know
as the implemented curriculum. When it exists in textbooks or in teachers teaching
input to present the classroom learning opportunities, and when it assesses the impact
on the students, this is what we know as the attained curriculum. The three roles of
the curriculum are actually varied in Taiwan from the initiation to the execution,
though their ultimate educational goals are to improve students learning. In search-
ing for the answers to these problems, it is necessary to trace back to consider the
initial curriculum developers, the curriculum materials developers, and the curricu-
lum implementers. In Taiwan, the mathematics curriculum initiators are, in general,
the academic researchers from the subjects of mathematics or mathematics educa-
tion. The developers of mathematics curricular materials are usually decided by the
publishers and are composed of researchers. The implementers of the mathematics
curriculum and its teaching materials are, of course, school mathematics teachers.
The hidden gaps within the tripartite curriculum model are the lack of dialogue and
154 F.-L. Lin and Y.-P. Chang

coordination among the people involved and the lack of evaluation from the ideal-
ization to practice of the curriculum. To decrease the gaps between the three roles of
the tripartite curriculum is the major mission of the following JDM project, which
bares the functions of research, development, and dissemination (Howson, Keitel, &
Kilpatrick, 1981).

8.1.3 The JUST DO MATH (JDM) Project

The study began with the author’s initial contact with mathematics teachers and
lectures in various professional development workshops. A frequent complaint was
that Taiwanese students’ mathematics learning was too rushed; for example, teachers
had insufficient time to emphasize the importance of algorithms before students
had to move on to learn a new mathematics concept. This rushed pace resulted in
students feeling disheartened (low attitudes) and confused (poor grounding), and
therefore minimized any meaningful learning of mathematics. The Shi-Da Institute
for Mathematics Education (SDiME) affiliated with the National Taiwan Normal
University (NTNU) initiated the project JDM, which is supported by MOE in 2014, to
create opportunities for students, especially those with low achievement, to engage in
mathematics cognitively and affectively, and also to enhance mathematics teachers’
professional development. In order to achieve these two aims, the project begins
with two themes. First, the project is to help students build the fundamental and
prerequisite notions of mathematics before, or in the beginning of learning a new
topic, by providing students with concrete learning experiences, rather than providing
them with additional instruction after they have failed in learning the specific topic.
Second, in order to support the first theme, the teachers should be competent to
analyze the fundamental and prerequisite notions of certain mathematics topics, to
differentiate the learning activities that are and are not capable of engaging students
in mathematics, and to implement instruction that can facilitate students’ engagement
in mathematics learning.
In fulfilling the two major aims of the project, the SDiME organizes a structural
plan to conduct national mathematical events for students and teachers. Students
are encouraged to register for the Math Camps that are taught by their teachers and
held in summer, winter, or every weekend of the school semester. Low achievers in
schools are given prior consideration in registration. Students’ participation in the
Math Camps are free, and the MOE funds the camps. Meanwhile, every elementary
school teacher and junior high school mathematics teacher (grades 3–8) who is
qualified as an activity spreader teacher are all invited to provide and manage the
Math Camps for students. They apply as a SDiME project, and the institute can help
to arrange activity spreader teachers to support the school.
To be a spreader teacher for Math Camp, teachers have to participate in a training
workshop to be competent to deliver the designed activities. This workshop aims at
training the qualified activity spreader teachers, and, once being qualified, they can
apply their own project to spread Math Camps in schools. The workshop is open for
8 Research and Development of Mathematics-Grounding … 155

both pre- and in-service teachers, and members from educational institutes concerned
with mathematics education in society. In the training workshop for activity spreader
teachers, they will learn how to deliver the qualified mathematics-grounding activity
(MGA) modules (see Lin & Chang, in press). Moreover, the experienced mathematics
teachers, such as teachers from the Central Counseling Team (CCT) and the Local
Counseling Teams (LCTs) of Taiwanese official teacher counseling organization
(Lin, Hsu, & Chen, in press), and teachers who are refereed by the CCT and who
have successfully taught a number of Math Camps, are invited to participate in
workshops to design MGA modules. Once they finish the courses provided in the
serial workshops and also submit their designs to SDiME for reviewing, they can
become candidates for qualified designers of MGA modules. If their submissions
are accepted, they will then become the MGA designers, and can be future lecturers
delivering the courses in both workshops to teach their peer teachers how to use the
activities and how and why they designed those modules. This will directly involve
teachers in connecting the curriculum to the classroom materials.
In the following session, we discuss the theories underlying the design of the MGA
modules. The systematic development of the mathematics curriculum is consequent
upon a close connection between theory and design.

8.2 The Provocative Thinking of Theories in Developing

MGA Modules

8.2.1 The Initial Thinking

About three years ago, when the first author (Fou-Lai Lin) played Gomoku, a game
played with the white and black stones, with his grandson (who was 7 years old and a
2nd grader at that time), the mathematical game, rectangular numbers, immediately
came to mind. The original idea of this game comes from Richard Skemp’s demon-
stration in an elementary school, in 1983, in Taiwan. The first author played this
game with his grandson by building up the rules gradually, based on the grandson’s
prior knowledge of multiplication between two 1 digit natural numbers, though he
had no idea of the formal definition of a rectangle or any knowledge of the area for-
mula of rectangles. He first tried to use the stones to show the grandson how to form
various kinds of rectangles. Any shape of rectangle is given one point in the game.
He then discussed with his grandson what forms are counted as the same, and what
forms are not. Unfortunately, the grandson showed his unwillingness to continue the
game after this 10 min warming-up activity. However, one week later, the grandson
took the initiative in playing the game with the first author again. When they were
both familiar with the rules they had agreed, they started to play with 50 stones,
from 1 to 50 gradually, to shape the rectangles, and they recorded the numbers that
156 F.-L. Lin and Y.-P. Chang

could form one shape of rectangle on a piece of paper. After an hour of playing, the
first author tried to ask the grandson to accumulate the scores for each number and
to total the scores.
Upon finding there were some numbers having no score, the grandson naturally
named those numbers as the non-scored numbers. Mathematically, those numbers
having no scores are prime numbers, which are quite abstract for higher graders to
learn (in the Taiwanese curriculum, it is introduced in the 5th grade, and the grandson
was in the 2nd grade). Generally, it is difficult for younger students to understand
that a prime number is a number having no divisors other than 1 and itself. However,
through the activity of forming the shapes of triangles, students can experience the
meaning of a composite number and why there is a prime number.
The unexpected answer, the non-scored number, drove the first author to rethink
the order of our formal school curriculum and also what a meaningful lesson means
to students learning mathematics. This young child could learn the mathematical
concept through manipulating the stones (enactive learning mode) to shape various
forms of rectangles (iconic learning mode), and by recording the scores, i.e., the
number of forms, of one number (symbolic learning mode), and finally naming
those numbers having no scores as the non-scored numbers. Moreover, by learning
through playing a game, the child became highly motivated, learning the rules and
playing the game. Even though he did quit the game in the beginning because of his
unfamiliarity with the game, he thought through the rules of the game one week later
and he began again to play the game. Though he had not learned the formal language
of prime numbers, this 2nd grader could learn the concept of the prime number
through manipulating the toolkits (including the stones and the recording sheet),
and using different learning modes, i.e., the structuralist approach (Howson et al.,
1981), without any instruction. Such a learning approach might be an alternative to
revolutionize students’ mathematics learning.

8.2.2 Networking Theories

In order to develop grounding-lessons for solid mathematics for students, it is nec-

essary to provide students opportunities for meaningful learning (Ausubel, 1961).
We consider that gradual learning in mathematics is necessary to build their math-
ematics understanding; moreover, students should enjoy learning mathematics. We
therefore start by discussing theories related to students’ cognitive development in
mathematics learning and then apply these theories in activities designed to provide
fun for students’ mathematics learning.
Skemp’s points of children’s schema construction are essential in understanding
children’s approach to learning mathematics. Skemp (1987) proposed a framework
of schema construction which is composed of three modes for building and testing
specific concepts (see Table 8.2). The processes for building schema for learning
gradually shift from the external surrounding world (mode 1) to the learner’s internal
world (mode 3).
8 Research and Development of Mathematics-Grounding … 157

Table 8.2 Three models of schema construction

Building Testing
Mode 1
Experience Experiment
From our own encounters Against expectations of events in the physical world
with the physical world
Mode 2
Communication Discussion
From the schema of others Comparison with the schemas of others
Mode 3
Creativity Internal consistency
From within by formation of Comparison with one’s own existing knowledge and beliefs
higher-order concepts
(extrapolation, imagination,
intuition)

In early stages of preliminary knowledge acquisition, it is necessary to avoid

the usage of abstract symbols or language in students’ preliminary learning. There-
fore, activities should be constructed to correspond to students’ specific learning
modes (see aforementioned examples). With the assistance of Bruner’s three repre-
sentational schemes (Bruner, 1964): enactive representation, iconic representation,
and symbolic representation, opportunities can be provided for different students to
experience the relative abstract concepts. Furthermore, in organizing the content,
the methodology of the spiral curriculum (Bruner, 1960) is employed to build ideal
learning processes that emphasize the importance of children’s cognitive develop-
ment.
An efficient way to motivate students to learn mathematics is to provide interest-
ing and meaningful activities that offer students not only fun but also meaningful
learning. The promoter of game-based learning, Keith Devlin, contends that ‘games
are the best way to teach math’ (Shapiro, 2014). The aforementioned example of
playing with the grandson is proof of the effectiveness of games in promoting learn-
ing. Not only was he motivated and eager to win, he also displayed cognitive skills
through thinking of various strategies to win.
In developing game-based learning, it is important to consider the related learning
content of the game. Therefore, we make use of the six sequential stages of math-
ematics games adapted from Dienes (1973) to express the progressive functions of
mathematics and present them briefly in Table 8.3. In this way, we hope to present the
value of mathematics to students, especially those who dislike mathematics, to help
them to appreciate preliminary and ongoing development of mathematical concepts.
Since many studies of the problems students have in mathematics learning show
the close connection between students’ misconceptions and their intuition (e.g., Fis-
chbein, 1982) in almost every mathematics topic, the MGA modules are encouraged
to focus on mathematics intuitive rules. Examples are ‘more A more B’ and ‘same
A same B’ (Stavy & Tirosh, 2000; Tirosh & Stavy, 1999).
158 F.-L. Lin and Y.-P. Chang

Table 8.3 Progressive functions of designing MGA module in six stages

Stage Functions of mathematics games in students’ learning
Stage 1 In this stage, students are intentionally assigned a
Free play specially designed game to awaken an interest in
mathematical attributes. The student is orientated to
learning through the activity
Stage 2 In this stage, students have to adjust to the mathematical
Rules in the games attributes embedded in the games and then find their
pattern. In brief, the rules of the game are explored by
students in this stage, though they are already embedded
in the game design
Stage 3 In this stage, students have to find the mathematical
Searching for communality structure from the activity. Usually, this is done before or
after the game
Stage 4 In this stage, students have to construct ways of
Representations representing their learning in order to communicate
abstract concepts with their peers
Stage 5 This is the stage to build symbolic language to examine
Symbolizations and to describe their representation
Stage 6 In this stage, the process of formalization is meant to
Formalization prove the rules of the mathematical game, including the
description of the axioms, the deductive reasoning of a
theorem, the proof from an axiom to a theory, etc.

8.3 Examples of MGA Modules

The grounding-lessons are composed of designed MGA modules. These activities

are mainly designed as manipulative activities in the formation of a game (Appendix).
The MGA module of RECTANGULAR NUMBERS is an example of a module
composed of three activities adapted from Skemp’s original task. It is an exploration
of the prerequisites of multiplication, further developing students’ concepts of prime
numbers, composite numbers, and factorization. In the first exploratory activity of
this MGA module, students have to experience a geometric shape composed of
12 dots of stone, accept the number of dots 12 is called one ‘rectangular number,’
and then keep practicing different shapes of various rectangular numbers. Further,
they have to communicate and discuss with each other whether the specific geometric
shape belongs to the domain of rectangular numbers, i.e., the square , and whether

the (perpendicularly) rotated rectangles and belong to the same rect-

angular numbers, and even have to challenge themselves in the especially creative
cases whether the special shapes such as the line shape belong to the rectangular
numbers, and whether the hollow shape belongs to the rectangular numbers.
8 Research and Development of Mathematics-Grounding … 159

Table 8.4 List of the Points of the denoted number List of the numbers
corresponding numbers and
their various points 0 point (no set of width and length)
1 point (1 set of width and length)
2 points (2 sets of width and length)
3 points (3 sets of width and length)
4 points (4 sets of width and length)

Within this activity, students have to build various examples and test them till they
accept the rules embedded in the activity. In the second activity, students are asked
to practice with their peers based on the rules from the exploration experience in the
first activity. They have to compete for constructing as many rectangular numbers as
they can within 50. At this stage, the activity spreader teacher assists students during
their practice. In the third activity, students are arranged into groups composed of
2–3 people. Within one group, one has to pose a random rectangular number within
50 and the opponent has to decode this number into the numbers of the rectangle’s
width and length and then record the numbers beneath the posed rectangular number.
Once they correctly decode the rectangular number into a set of numbers of width
and length, they can get one point for each set beneath the rectangular number. After
they finish decoding the 50 numbers, they are required to categorize the points for
each number and list them in the table (Table 8.4). Moreover, they have to observe
the communality among the same points and construct the representations for them.
Regarding the formal language (symbolization), it can be introduced at an appropriate
time for different graders.
This single MGA module can be used for even the 2nd graders who have the pre-
liminary understanding of multiplication. It can increase difficulty with bigger num-
bers for students from higher grades. Moreover, it can be integrated with other MGA
modules for further exploration of related mathematical notions, such as providing
concrete experiences for students to learn the more abstract module of SQUARING
THE SQUARES AND RECTANGLES (Appendix) which is related to the content
of algebraic factorization.
There are other MGA modules which encourage exploration of intuitive rules of
mathematics. An example of the MGA module of THE ISOMETRIC GEOBOARD
(Appendix) can provide concrete experiences for students to understand the increased
length of the geometric shape (e.g., a square) does not imply the same increase of its
area; though the original intention of the module is to cultivate students’ notion of
irrational numbers.
160 F.-L. Lin and Y.-P. Chang

8.4 The Development of MGA Modules

In this session, we introduce how the development of MGA modules functions as

part of the mathematics curriculum in Taiwan.

8.4.1 The Seamless Mathematics Curriculum

The grounding-lessons of the mathematics curriculum is composed of specially

designed MGA modules. These activities are mainly designed as manipulative activ-
ities in the formation of games (e.g., NUMBER BINGO and A SEVEN-PIECE
PUZZLE, Appendix). They are designed by experienced mathematics teachers or
academic researchers. Teachers who plan to implement these lessons in their class-
room can use the freely released materials, i.e., the MGA modules. These released
materials (in Chinese) can be found in the Webpage of SDiME (http://mec.math.
ntnu.edu.tw). The implementers of these mathematics-grounding-lessons are math-
ematics teachers in elementary schools or junior high schools. As aforementioned,
these implementers have to be qualified as an activity spreader teacher by partic-
ipating in a two-day workshop to experience how to use the manipulatives in the
MGA modules. With this experience of the modules, they foresee and understand
the possible problems of their own students. Then, they have to apply for their own
project from SDiME to manage their own Math Camp. The lessons can be organized
and adapted to their own specific instructional situation.
The applications of Math Camps are separated into three levels: grades 3–4,
5–6, and 7–8. The same pool of MGA modules are shared within the same level.
However, the activity spreader teachers keep the final right to decide the content and
the lessons of their own Math Camp project from the pool of available activities.
Only the spreader teachers can apply Math Camps for students since only these
teachers are qualified to deliver the MGA modules to their corresponding level. If
teachers would like to deliver Math Camp for different levels of students, they have
to attend the training workshops for the denoted levels to have the qualification. This
differentiation between learning levels intends to ensure that the activity spreader
teachers can grasp the core of the MGA modules for the specific grade level.
Below we discuss the implementation of the grounding-lessons by discussing its
design and classroom practice.

8.4.2 The Design and Experiment in Classrooms

The present mathematics curriculum conforms to the National Standards which are
directed by a committee of mathematicians and mathematics educators. The curric-
ular materials used in classrooms are developed according to the National Standards
8 Research and Development of Mathematics-Grounding … 161

by independent publishers and inspected by the academic institute, the National

Academy for Educational Research (NAER). It is believed that there is a disparity
between the ideal National Standards and the actual curricular materials, the mathe-
matics textbooks.
The development of the grounding-lessons targets directly students’ learning dif-
ficulties. There are three separate groups who are called upon to design the MGA
modules. First, the general public are invited to name students’ learning difficulties in
mathematical topics listed from the released syllabus and are asked to design lessons
to help overcome these difficulties. Second, experienced teachers are called on as
potential module designers. Thirdly, doctoral students and mathematics education
researchers are invited. We discuss the differences between these three sources.
– The first announcement is to the public. In this announcement, all submissions are
asked to target at the mathematics topics which bear students’ learning difficulties
and try to overcome them in the design.
– The second is the invitation to the potential designers who are experienced math-
ematics teachers and who are invited to a set of workshops to learn how to design
activities. This workshop is a closed workshop for only the invited expert teachers.
The invitations are sent by the mathematics teachers of CCT. Since 2015, there
have been 107 teachers who have participated in this workshop. In the first year
2014, only the CCT and teachers of the Local Counseling Team (LCT) were invited
to attend the workshop to learn how to design activity modules. In this year, all
the submitted designs were accepted.
– The third call is the academic invitation to the doctoral students and mathemat-
ics educators. This invitation focuses on mathematical content that has not yet
appeared or is not yet emphasized in the present curriculum, but is potentially
important to students’ mathematics learning. Included also are those topics that
require further study, or longitudinal studies that are academic but relatively diffi-
cult for teachers to tackle. Examples of these topics are reasoning with uncertainty,
logic reasoning, spatial literacy, and specific mathematics properties. They are
important topics, but rarely discussed in the school curriculum.
In designing MGA modules, the structure of the content is required to follow a
set template. The structure of the content includes (a) the title of the activity; (b)
the activity’s mathematics concept, its related mathematical topic from the formal
curriculum, and its corresponding status to the curricular materials; (c) the suitable
subjects and grades for the activity; and (d) the stages of preparation and the main
activity.
162 F.-L. Lin and Y.-P. Chang

8.5 The Evaluative Research of the JDM Project

8.5.1 Present Results

The JUST DO MATH project creates opportunities for students to learn mathemat-
ics in enjoyable and meaningful ways and strengthens students’ fundamental math-
ematics concepts. It also creates opportunities for teachers to learn how to teach
and disseminate the designed mathematics-grounding activity modules, or to learn
how to design the specific mathematics-grounding activity modules that can help to
enhance their students’ mathematics learning cognitively and affectively.
Until mid-2016 (2014.09–2016.05), 3582 activity spreader teachers have been
qualified to deliver the grounding-lesson (composed of MGA modules), and 20,710
students from the elementary and junior high schools have attended the Math Camp.
Moreover, there have been 103 MGA modules accepted so far. The design of these
modules is mainly connected to algebraic content, geometric content, and some addi-
tional content that is important but has not appeared in the present school curriculum,
such as probability (not the classical probability) and spatial literacy (see Table 8.5).
Among these 103 MGA modules, 64 have been designed for dissemination in the
first stage in 2014, and 39 so far have been accepted in the second stage, in 2015.
All submitted designs are reviewed in two stages by a committee of SDiME. The
submitted designs are filtered into ‘passed’ and ‘failed’ during the review process.
The passed designs are separated into two categories: (1) for national dissemination
as MGA modules and (2) for individual teachers’ utilities as classroom applications.
The increasing numbers of students and teachers participating in the project have
shown their acceptance of this learning, and their positive feedback strengthens the
value of such developmental curriculum. Lin, Wang, and Yang (2016) analyzed stu-

Table 8.5 Distribution of accepted MGA modules in school mathematics

Categories of the MGA modules
Numbers
(e.g., numbers within 10,000, fractions, decimals, proportion, etc.)
Algorithm
(e.g., addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division)
Arithmetic
(e.g., addition and subtraction of fractions, decimals; the common divisor/multiple; factorization)
Algebra
(e.g., linear functions, linear inequality, quadratic equations, factorization, etc.)
Measurement
(e.g., millimeter, weight, area, number line, etc.)
Geometry concepts
(e.g., shapes, figures, area, circumferences, etc.)
Others (e.g., probability, spatial literacy)
8 Research and Development of Mathematics-Grounding … 163

dents’ quantitative and qualitative responses to their participation in Math Camp and
found that attending Math Camp and learning from the MGA modules can signifi-
cantly facilitate their cognitive and affective engagement in learning mathematics.

8.5.2 Future Considerations

Since the JDM project is a nationwide dissemination and development of MGA

modules, students’ learning, and teachers’ professional development, it therefore
requires as many resources as possible. Moreover, the development and dissemination
combine the theories and practices to avoid existing gaps that exist in the present
school curriculum. However, the present academic and administrative affairs are all
promoted by the first author who is the principal investigator of the project. For
a long-term consideration, it is necessary to distribute the workload to those who
have similar ideas and passions, to cascade the project in Taiwan. In the future, it is
planned to include the cooperation of as many principal investigators or academic
researchers as possible in this project to transmit the ideas to teachers, and then to
parents, as well as students.

Appendix. Examples of MGA Modules

SQUARING THE SQUARES AND RECTANGLES

I. Materials
– A set of several shapes of squares with areas x 2 and 1, and rectangles with area
x (width and length are 1 and x).
– Record sheet (4 for each group).
– Task sheet (4 for each group).
– Learning feedback sheet (4 for each group).

II. Contents of the Activity

To develop students’ mental image of the ‘method of completing the square’ through
manipulating the algebraic numbers represented in ‘shapes,’ before learning the topic
of factorization in school. This MGA module is suitable for 8th graders or 7th graders.
– Students can square the given pieces (the big squares of x 2 , the rectangles of x,
and the small squares of (1) to a new square.
– Students can find out the number of the rest small squares in order to complete the
full square through group discussion.
III. Procedures
164 F.-L. Lin and Y.-P. Chang

0. Observation and discussion of the shapes and areas of three different shapes.
1. Preparation Activities: to construct and discuss the examples and non-examples
of squaring new squares, i.e., the relationship between x 2 +bx +c and (x +q)2 .
2. Exploration and Reasoning Activities: Game competitions.

IV. Tasks and Feedback Collections

THE ISOMETRIC GEOBOARD

I. Materials
– An isometric geoboard for each group.
– The rubber bands (10 for each group).
– The game map.
– The cards of Chance and Opportunity (9 for each).
– Task sheet (1 for each group).
– Learning feedback sheet (1 for each group).
II. Contents of the Activity

To develop students’ mental image of square’s length with irrational number through
manipulating the isometric geoboard before learning the topic of square root in school
curriculum. The module is suitable for 7th graders or beyond.
– Students can surround the squares of given areas in the isometric geoboard.
– Student can surround the various squares of within a range of areas in the isometric
geoboard.
– The core notion of this MGA module is that student can surround the square of
the length in irrational number through the experimental manipulation.

III. Procedures

1. Preparation Activities: to surround a rotatable square on the isometric geoboard

and discuss the following question:
(1) Why the surrounded quadrangle is a square?
(2) How to calculate its area?
(3) Is there any other way to surround the square with the same area?
2. Game competition (with the given rules embedded).
IV. Tasks and Feedback Collections
8 Research and Development of Mathematics-Grounding … 165

NUMBER BINGO

I. Materials
– A set of number cards for 2 and 4 BINGO game: 28 cards of numbers 2 and
4 each; 4 cards of the joker; 1 card of numbers 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30,
and 32 each.
– A set of number cards for 5 and 10 BINGO game: 28 cards of numbers 5 and
10 each; 4 cards of the joker; 1 card of numbers 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75,
and 80 each.
– A set of number cards for 3 and 6 BINGO game: 28 cards of numbers 3 and
6 each; 4 cards of the joker; 1 card of numbers 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45,
and 48 each.
– Task sheets for each group.
– Learning feedback sheet for each individual.
II. Contents of the Activity

To develop the prerequisites of solving the specific algebraic problem: a cage of

chickens and rabbits for 5th graders or beyond.
– Students can find the numerical pattern with difference 2 from 2 and 4 BINGO
game.
– Students can find the numerical pattern with difference 5 from 5 and 10 BINGO
game.
– Students can find the numerical pattern with difference 3 from 3 and 6 BINGO
game.

III. Procedures

1. Preparation Activities: to play with 2 and 4 BINGO game to be familiar with

its rules, and to discuss how to speed up the game in the end.
2. Exploration Activities: to play with 5 and 10 BINGO game, and to discuss how
to play with the corresponding biggest and smallest numbers of BINGO card in
the end of the game.
3. Reasoning Activities: to play with 3 and 6 BINGO game, and to discuss in the
end of game that whether it is possible the number of the BINGO card is 28 in
the condition of every players get 8 cards.
IV. Tasks and Feedback Collections

A SEVEN-PIECE PUZZLE

I. Materials
– A set of a seven-piece puzzle for each individual.
166 F.-L. Lin and Y.-P. Chang

– Record sheet.
– Task and learning feedback sheets for each individual.
II. Contents of the Activity

To develop the prerequisites of manipulating with geometric kits for benefiting the
understanding of area formulae of triangles, quadrilaterals, and trapezoid for 3rd
graders or beyond.
– Students can understand the components of the seven-piece puzzle and have the
preliminary understanding of its composite figures.
– Students can apply the relationship among the components to construct new com-
binations of those components reasonably.
– The core notion of this MGA module is to strengthen students’ concrete experi-
ences in manipulating the geometric shapes and understand the area formulae of
triangles, parallelograms, and trapezoids.

III. Procedures

1. Preparation Activities: to practice the basic skills of movement, flip, and rotation
with a seven-piece puzzle kit.
2. Exploration Activities: to explore the pieces of geometric shapes of the puzzle
about their names, elements, and the relationship among elements (note: the
trapezoid and parallelogram are not learned yet by students, it is suggested to
discuss visually). The exploration is sequentially focused on:
(1) Classification of the pieces of geometric shapes.
(2) The base side and the height.
(3) Practice with the given 2 or 3 pieces to compound a new composite figure.
3. Reasoning Activities (playing the game to compound figures).
IV. Tasks and Feedback Collections
8 Research and Development of Mathematics-Grounding … 167

References

Ausubel, D. P. (1961). In defense of verbal learning. Educational Theory, 11, 15–25.

Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1964). The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 19(1), 1–15.
Dienes, Z. (1973). The six stages in the process of learning mathematics. Windsor Berks, U.K.:
NFER Publishing.
Fischbein, E. (1982). Intuition and proof. For the Learning of Mathematics, 3(2), 9–18, 24.
Garden, R. A. (1987). The second IEA mathematics study. Comparative Education Review, 31(1),
47–68.
Howson, G., Keitel, C., & Kilpatrick, J. (1981). Curriculum development in mathematics. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lin, F.-L. (2015). Conceptualizing quality mathematics education. In Plenary Panel at the 7th East
Asia Regional Conference on Mathematics Education. May 11–15, 2015, Cebu, Philippines.
Lin, F.-L., & Chang, Y.-P. (in press). Mathematics teachers professional development in Taiwan.
In B. Kaur & C. Vistro-Yu (Eds.), Mathematics Education—An Asian perspective. Singapore:
Springer.
Lin, F.-L., Hsu, H.-Y., & Chen, J.-C. (in press). Lighten-up, school-based program: An innovation
for facilitating professional growth of Taiwanese in-service mathematics teachers. In B. Kaur &
C. Vistro-Yu (Eds.), Mathematics Education—An Asian perspective. Singapore: Springer.
Lin, F.-L., Wang, T.-Y. (2016). A model to facilitates student engagement in learning mathematics:
A large-scale project in Taiwan. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Lin, F.-L., Wang, T.-Y., & Yang, K.-L. (2016). Transformative cascade model for mathematics
teacher professional development. In Proceeding of the 13th International Congress on Mathe-
matics Education.
Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V.S., Foy, P. in collaboration 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.
Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
Mullis, I. V.S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in math-
ematics. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement
(IEA).
OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 technical report. Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing.
Robitaille, D. F., Schmidt, W. H., Raizen, S. A., McKnight, C. C., Britton, E., & Nicol, C. (1993).
Curriculum frameworks for mathematics and science (TIMSS Monograph No. 1). Vancouver:
Pacific Educational Press.
Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L. S., et al. (2001).
Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Shapiro, J. (2014). 5 Things you need to know about the future of math. Retrieved
from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanshapiro/2014/07/24/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-
the-future-of-math/.
Skemp, R. R. (1987). The psychology of learning mathematics (Expanded American ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Psychology Press.
Skemp, R. R. (1989). Mathematics in the primary school. London: Routledge Palmer.
Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2000). How students (mis-)understand science and mathematics: Intuitive
rules. New York: Teachers College Press.
Tirosh, D., & Stavy, R. (1999). Intuitive rules: A way to explain and predict students’ reasoning.
Educational Studies Mathematics, 38, 51–66.
Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2002). According
to the book: Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world
of textbooks. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
168 F.-L. Lin and Y.-P. Chang

Fou-Lai Lin is Emeritus Professor at the National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU), President
of PME (2007–2010), Founder and Editor-in-Chief of IJSME (2002–2012), and also Founder of
the Shi-Da Institute for Mathematics Education at NTNU. He is an experienced and active inter-
national mathematics educator. He has expertise in mathematics curriculum, learning and teaching
of various mathematics contents, and teachers’ professional development.

Yu-Ping Chang is Postdoctoral Researcher of the Shi-Da Institute for Mathematics Education at
the National Taiwan Normal University. She has various research interests in mathematics educa-
tion, including curriculum, learning and teaching, and professional development.
 Part III

The book ends with a part on problems and issues related to mathematics cur-
riculum, curriculum policies, and future directions for school mathematics curric-
ula. These chapters discuss and analyze problematic aspects of curriculum
development and implementation in Asian countries. These chapters hope to con-
tribute to shaping effective policies for implementation, assessment, and monitoring
of curricula.
Chapter 9
Issues of Mathematics Curriculum
in Japan: Changing Curriculum Policies
and Developing Curriculum Frameworks
for Mathematics

Masataka Koyama

Abstract Mathematics curriculum policies and frameworks have far-reaching

impacts on the learning outcomes of school students at various levels through mathe-
matics curriculum standards, resource materials, and teaching strategies. This chapter
focuses on issues of mathematics curriculum in Japan in terms of changing curricu-
lum policies and developing curriculum frameworks for school mathematics. It will
contribute to highlight and share the unique and common issues of school mathe-
matics curricula among Asian countries. In this chapter, first, we will present one
cycle of revising school curriculum in Japan. Second, we will look at a brief history
of Japan mathematics curricula in order to identify different curriculum policies and
frameworks for school mathematics. Third, we will analyze a relationship between
changing a mathematics curriculum policy and developing a mathematics curricu-
lum framework for school mathematics with two cases of recent revision cycle of
mathematics curriculum in Japan. In this section, we will discuss on the problematic
aspects of developing a curriculum framework to embody the changed policy into
new curriculum standards for mathematics. Finally, we will summarize this chapter
to identify a keen issue of the mathematics curriculum policy for school.

9.1 Introduction

Mathematics curriculum policies and frameworks have far-reaching impacts on the

learning outcomes of school students at various levels through mathematics curricu-
lum standards, resource materials, and teaching strategies (Dossey, Halvorsen, &
McCrone, 2012; Leung & Li, 2010; Thompson, Kaur, Koyama, & Bleiler, 2013). In
the case of Japan mathematics curriculum, Koyama (2008) highlights some issues
impacting on Japan mathematics education from three viewpoints of mathematics
curriculum, children, and mathematics teachers. Koyama (2010) gives comprehen-
sive information about the mathematics education in Japan focusing on its curricu-

M. Koyama (B)
Hiroshima University, Higashihiroshima, Japan
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 171

C. P. Vistro-Yu and T. L. Toh (eds.), School Mathematics Curricula,
Mathematics Education – An Asian Perspective,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6312-2_9
172 M. Koyama

lum. Therefore, this chapter focuses on issues of mathematics curriculum in Japan

in terms of changing curriculum policies and developing curriculum frameworks for
school mathematics. It will contribute to highlight and share the unique and common
issues of school mathematics curricula among Asian countries.
In this chapter, first, we will present one cycle of revising school curriculum in
Japan. Step 1: In the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
(Ministry of Education), a Central Education Council is established to discuss on the
government’s request for advice and submit a report on education policy in gen-
eral for changing/reforming education in schools. Then, a Curriculum Subdivision is
established to submit a report on curriculum policy for advising on the revision and
development of curriculum standards according to the Central Education Council’s
report. Step 2: After receiving the Curriculum Subdivision’s guideline for revising
curriculum, with the support of special working groups, the Ministry of Education
compiles the Course of Study (CS) for school subjects. Moreover, the Ministry com-
piles curriculum guidebooks in which the objectives and contents of each school
subject are explained in detail. Second, we will look at a brief history of Japan
mathematics curricula. From the historical perspective, we will identify different
curriculum policies (Step 1) and frameworks for school mathematics (Step 2). Third,
we will analyze a relationship between changing a curriculum policy and developing
a curriculum framework for school mathematics with two cases of recent revision
cycle of mathematics curriculum in Japan. In this section, we will discuss on the prob-
lematic aspects of developing a curriculum framework to embody the changed policy
into new curriculum standards for school mathematics. Finally, we will summarize
this chapter to identify a keen issue of the mathematics curriculum policy for school.

9.2 One Cycle of Revising Mathematics Curriculum

In Japan, the national curriculum standards for education in schools are prescribed
in the Course of Study (CS) issued by the Ministry of Education. The Course of
Study for school mathematics (MCS) has been revised and reissued approximately
once every ten years since the establishment of the Constitution of Japan and the
Fundamental Law of Education in 1947. Figure 9.1 shows one cycle of revising the
MCS. The shaded boxes in the figure indicate some agents involved in the process
of revision cycle.
The aim of the MCS is to ensure that an optimum level of teaching and learning is
secured in all schools, based on the fundamental national education policy such as
the principle of equal education opportunity for all. Any revisions to the MCS have
to be based on the education policy established in the Constitution of Japan and also
with the goals and principles of education prescribed by the Fundamental Law of
Education in Japan.
Step 1: For each revision cycle, a Central Education Council in the Ministry
of Education is established to discuss on the government’s request for advice
and submit the Minister of Education a report on education policy in general for
9 Issues of Mathematics Curriculum in Japan: Changing Curriculum … 173

Constitution of Japan
Fundamental Law of Education

Inter- and National Surveys

Central Education Council (CEC)

Textbook companies
Schools
Education policy
The MCS in general
Guidebook of the MCS

Ministry of Education
WG for the MCS

Curriculum policy Curriculum Subdivision

for the MCS of the CEC

Fig. 9.1 One cycle of revising the Course of Study for mathematics (MCS) in Japan

changing/reforming education in Japan. This Education Council is made up of about

30 members who are representatives from various agents such as universities, boards
of education, schools, parent–teacher associations, regional governments, sports
organizations, journalists, and industries. The Council has regular meetings for about
three years to discuss and submit a final report to the Minister. In the meetings, to
identify the issues of education to be overcome in the next decade, the Council uses
various information including social needs, economics, and results of international
surveys (e.g., TIMSS and PISA) and national surveys of students’ performance.
Then, a Curriculum Subdivision of the Council is established to discuss on a guide-
line for revising the CS and submit a report on curriculum policy on the revision
and development of national curriculum standards. The Curriculum Subdivision for
mathematics is made up of a few members who are representatives of mathematics
educators from universities and schools in Japan. The Subdivision has regular
meetings to make a curriculum policy and guideline for revising the current MCS
in accordance with the education policy reported by the Central Education Council.
Step 2: After receiving the Curriculum Subdivision’s report, in the case of school
mathematics education, three working groups (WG) for elementary, lower secondary,
and upper secondary schools are organized by the Ministry of Education. Each WG
is made of 15 representative professors/teachers from mathematics educators in ele-
mentary, lower secondary, and upper secondary levels. The WG has intensive meet-
ings for about two years to make a curriculum framework, set up and regulate the
overall objectives among three school levels, and the grade’s and area’s objectives
174 M. Koyama

and contents of school mathematics, and draw up a draft of the new MCS. With such
input from the WG for school mathematics, the Ministry compiles a final draft of the
MCS for schools. The Ministry opens the final draft to the public for getting any com-
ments on the draft for about one month in the home page of the Ministry of Education
(http://www.mext.go.jp). After the period of public comment, the Ministry notifies
the new MCS. Furthermore, with the support of the WG for school mathematics, the
Ministry also compiles curriculum guidebooks of the new MCS, because the MCS
is in a concise form. The guidebooks aim to help mathematics teachers/educators
and textbook companies recognize and understand the objectives and contents of the
new MCS and the examples of instructional materials suggested for the teaching and
learning of mathematics in schools.
Step 3: After the notice of the new MCS by the Ministry of Education, textbook
companies begin to make a new series of mathematics textbook for schools. In Japan,
although any commercial publishers can produce textbooks freely, all textbooks must
be approved and authorized by the Ministry of Education according to the MCS for
being used in schools. It takes at least two years for a textbook company to make
a new series of mathematics textbook, and to be approved and authorized by the
Ministry as official textbooks used in schools. Therefore, the Ministry gives about
three years of transition measures to schools/teachers for making a smooth shift from
the old MCS to the new MCS. During the period of transition measures, schools and
teachers make an adjusted mathematics curriculum and teach students mathematics
to avoid any disadvantages that might be caused by the curriculum revision for their
students.

9.3 History of Japan Mathematics Curriculum

In order to identify different curriculum policies and frameworks for school mathe-
matics, in this section, we will look at a brief history of Japan mathematics curricula
from 1947. Before looking at the history, we need to have a bird’s-eye view of
education in Japan (Koyama, 2010, pp. 59, 60).
In 1947, the educational system in Japan was reorganized, both in structure and
in curriculum according to the Constitution of Japan and the Fundamental Law of
Education. The Constitution of Japan sets forth the fundamental national education
policy as follows: “All people shall have the right to receive an equal education
corresponding to their ability, as provided by law. The people shall be obligated to
have all boys and girls under their protection receive ordinary education as provided
for by law. Such compulsory education shall be free (Article 26).” The Fundamental
Law of Education sets forth in more detail the aims and principles of education in
accordance with the spirit of the Constitution (Ministry of Education, 2000, p. 8).
The so-called 6-3-3-4 system of schooling was implemented and has continued in
fundamentally the same form to the present day. It is essentially composed of six-year
elementary school, three-year lower secondary school, three-year upper secondary
9 Issues of Mathematics Curriculum in Japan: Changing Curriculum … 175

school, and four years of university. Schools and universities are classified as national,
local public, or private.
The MCS has been revised and reissued approximately once every ten years
from 1947. The main features of the curriculum revision are summarized with a
word of mathematics curriculum policy as follows (Koyama, 2008, 2010, pp. 61, 62;
Nakahara, Fujii, & Koyama, 2000).
(1) Life-unit learning Period (1947–1957)
The MCS was made under the strong guidance of the American educational
mission. The so-called life-unit leaning began to be implemented in 1947, and
its goal was that students should learn how to use mathematics in their everyday
life. However, this curriculum was severely criticized, because the students’
performance in mathematics seemed to be lowered.
(2) Systematic learning Period (1958–1968)
The MCS was changed to study mathematics systematically in 1958. The con-
tents were rearranged from a mathematical point of view, and the level of math-
ematical contents in schools was raised.
(3) Modernization Period (1969–1976)
The MCS was revised according to the direction of the international movement
of modernization of mathematics education (so-called New Math movement).
For example, the concept and symbols of “set” were introduced into lower sec-
ondary school, and pure mathematics was emphasized at secondary school level.
However, many students could not understand the so-called New Mathematics
well. Therefore, the mass media, parents, and some mathematicians criticized
the curriculum.
(4) Back to basics Period (1977–1988)
The MCS was revised according to the direction of the modification of modern-
ization (so-called Back to basics movement). The basic knowledge and skills in
mathematics were emphasized. In that sense, the level of mathematical contents
was lowered again.
(5) Integration of cognitive and affective aspects Period (1989–1997)
The MCS was revised to integrate cognitive and affective aspects in school
mathematics. For example, the following objectives for mathematics were set
up in the elementary school. “To help students develop their abilities to consider
daily life problems insightfully and logically, and thereby foster their attitudes
to appreciate the mathematical coping with and to willingly make use of the
above mentioned qualities and abilities in their lives.”
(6) Latitude through intensive selection of teaching contents Period (1998–2007)
The MCS was revised according to the direction of the latitude through intensive
selection of teaching contents in school mathematics in order to overcome quite
notable problems such as “un-schooling” and “classroom in crisis” attributed to
excessively stressed life of students. In fact, the teaching and learning contents
were slimmed down intensively, and about 30% of mathematical content was
removed from elementary and lower secondary school levels.
176 M. Koyama

(7) Emphasis of mathematical activities Period (2008-present)

The MCS was revised according to the direction of the emphasis of students’
mathematical activities in school mathematics. In accordance with the education
policy on the emphasis of mathematics and science education in schools, the
standard number of hours for school mathematics is increased, and students’
mathematical activities are emphasized more than before.
The history of revising mathematics curriculum in Japan seems to follow the
worldwide trends of mathematics education, like a pendulum swinging back and
forth, with its own specific features in each period reflecting the Japanese culture
and economic situation surrounding mathematics education at that time. Although
there are the immutable in mathematics curriculum throughout the long history of
mathematics education in schools from 1947 to the present, in each period we see
the unique vogue of mathematics curriculum reformed by certain mathematics cur-
riculum policy as indicated above (Step 1). In the process of revising mathematics
curriculum for schools, it is important and difficult for agents to make an appropriate
balance between the immutable and the vogue in school mathematics curriculum for
those young students who are living in a rapid changing and uncertain global society
in the world (Step 2). In the next section, we will focus on these two steps.

9.4 Relationship Between Changing the MCP

and Developing the MCF

In this section, we will analyze a relationship between changing a curriculum policy

and developing a curriculum framework for school mathematics with two cases
of recent revision cycle of Japan mathematics curriculum for elementary and lower
secondary schools as the compulsory education from the MCS 1989 to the MCS 2008.
In the analysis, we use a simple version of the framework for analyzing mathematics
curriculum policy (MCP) proposed by Wong, Koyama, and Lee (2013) to cover four
aspects of MCP. Our analysis uses the MCS 1989 as a starting point and goes to two
revision cycles of mathematics curriculum from the MCS 1989 to the MCS 1998, then
to the MCS 2008 in Japan. In this order, we will discuss on the problematic aspects
of developing a mathematics curriculum framework (MCF) in order to embody the
changed mathematics curriculum policy (MCP) into new curriculum standards for
mathematics (MCS).

9.4.1 Revision Cycle of the MCS 1989 Led to the MCS 1998

In 1981, the Ministry of Education planned to revise the MCS 1977. The educa-
tion policy on the revision was the establishment of individualism of students, the
internationalization, and the utilization of technology. In 1989, the MCS was revised
9 Issues of Mathematics Curriculum in Japan: Changing Curriculum … 177

(Ministry of Education, 1989) and came into force in April 1992 for all grades in
elementary school, and in April 1993 for all grades in lower secondary school.

9.4.1.1 Mathematics Curriculum Policy (MCP)

About 7 years after the revision, Japan Government decided to introduce the so-
called five-day week schooling system. In July 1996, the Central Education Council
put up the education policy of “Zest for Living” (Ikiru-chikara in Japanese) and
created a time period for “integrated study” as a new course. In July 1998, the
Curriculum Subdivision submitted the final report to the Minister of Education for
revising the MCS 1989. In the final report, the mathematics curriculum policy of two
basic principles of revising mathematics curriculum in schools was highlighted as
follows (Ministry of Education, 1999a, 1999b).
(a) Throughout their study in elementary (Grades 1–6), lower secondary (Grades
7–9) and upper secondary schools (Grades 10–12), students are helped to acquire
basic and fundamental knowledge and skills regarding numbers, quantities, and
geometrical figures to thereby cultivate a basis of creativity such as looking at
things from different points of view, thinking logically, appreciating ways of
analyzing phenomena mathematically, and further developing their willingness
to make use of them.
(b) In order to do so, the content of the mathematics curriculum is being changed so
that students can proceed in their studies enjoyably and confidently by recogniz-
ing connections between mathematics and everyday life, and solving problems
spontaneously.
According to the MCP of two basic principles, the MCS was revised in December
1998 for elementary and lower secondary schools (Ministry of Education, 1998), and
then implemented in April 2002 for all grades in elementary and lower secondary
schools at the same time.

9.4.1.2 Curriculum Standards for Mathematics (MCS)

Table 9.1 shows the change of the number of hours for mathematics in elementary
school. Table 9.2 shows the change of the number of hours for lower secondary school
mathematics. In comparing the MCS 1998 with the MCS 1989, 14% of the total hour
for six years in elementary school was cut off, and 18% was cut off throughout three
years in lower secondary school.
In order to understand the reason why such a decision was made by the Ministry
of Education, we have to know what issues were recognized by the Ministry in 1998
when the revision of the MCS was discussed on in the Curriculum Subdivision meet-
ings. The Ministry recognized, as a result of national surveys and the international
TIMSS 1995 survey (National Institute for Educational Policy Research, 2001), the
following issues that should be overcome in the process of revising mathematics
178 M. Koyama

Table 9.1 Standard school Grade 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total

hours a year for elementary
school mathematics The MCS 136 175 175 175 175 175 1011
1989
The MCS 114 155 150 150 150 150 869
1998
Notes (1) The one unit school hour is a class period of 45 min
(2) The standard number of school weeks per year is 34 weeks for
Grade 1 and 35 weeks for the Grades 2–6

Table 9.2 Standard school Grade 7 8 9 Total

hours a year for lower
secondary school The MCS 1989 105 140 140 385
mathematics The MCS 1998 105 105 105 315
Notes (1) The one unit school hour is a class period of 50 min
(2) The standard number of school weeks per year is 35 weeks for
all Grades 7–9
(3) Mathematics can be taken as one of several optional subjects
at each grade, in addition to mathematics as a compulsory subject
prescribed in this table

curricula in order to improve the teaching and learning of mathematics in schools

(Koyama, 2010, p. 64).
(1) The teaching style for mathematics is a teacher-centered approach and students
learn mathematics passively.
(2) Students’ ability to think mathematically and multilaterally is not sufficiently
exercised.
(3) While the students’ average score in mathematics is relatively high, many stu-
dents do not have the positive attitude toward mathematics.

9.4.1.3 Mathematics Curriculum Framework (MCF)

The Ministry of Education added new phrases into the overall objectives of the MCS
1998 such as “through mathematical activities,” “the pleasure of doing activities,”
and “enjoy mathematical activities” as follows (Ministry of Education, 1998, 1999a,
1999b).
Elementary school mathematics (The MCS 1998)
Through mathematical activities concerning numbers, quantities, and geometrical
figures, to help students acquire the basic knowledge and skills, and develop their
abilities to think their daily life phenomena insightfully and logically, as well as
to help them notice the pleasure of doing activities and appreciate the value of
mathematical methods, and thereby to foster their attitudes of willingly making use
of the above-mentioned qualities and abilities in their lives.
9 Issues of Mathematics Curriculum in Japan: Changing Curriculum … 179

Lower secondary school mathematics (The MCS 1998)

To help students deepen their understanding of the basic concepts, principles and rules
concerning numbers, quantities, and figures, and acquire the way of mathematically
representing and coping with, and to improve their abilities to think and deal with
various phenomena mathematically, as well as to help them enjoy mathematical
activities and appreciate the mathematical ways of viewing and thinking, and thereby
to foster their attitudes of willingly making use of the above-mentioned qualities and
abilities.
The added phrases in the MCS 1998 are never seen in the previous ones. In
this sense, we can say that this MCS emphasizes students’ mathematical activities
and their positive attitudes toward mathematics leading to cultivating their basis
of creativity, reflecting the MCP of two basic principles mentioned above (a) and
(b) for changing school mathematics. Therefore, it might be said that the overall
objectives for school mathematics in the MCS become richer than before. On the
other hand, in order to cope with the so-called five-day week schooling system
and the new course of “integrated study,” the Ministry removed about 30% of the
mathematical content so as to foster students’ positive attitude toward mathematics
and provide students with time for doing mathematical activities that might promote
their creative thinking in the limited time (Ministry of Education, 1999a, 1999b). For
example, in the case of lower secondary school mathematics (Fig. 9.2), in learning
each content of “A. numbers and algebraic expressions,” “B. geometrical figures,”
and “C. quantitative relations,” and in learning the connection of these contents,
students should be provided with opportunities to do mathematical activities.

Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9

A. Numbers and Algebraic Expressions

B. Geometrical Figures

C. Quantitative Relations

Fig. 9.2 Mathematics curriculum framework (MCF) for lower secondary school in 1998
180 M. Koyama

9.4.2 Revision Cycle of the MCS 1998 Led to the MCS 2008

In Japan, as shown by the national and international surveys, on the one hand, many
students in elementary and secondary schools have a negative attitude toward math-
ematics, and on the other hand, the average score of Japanese students’ achievement
in mathematical knowledge and skills is relatively high compared with the interna-
tional average score. This conflicting phenomenon is not new. In recent years, as a
result of national surveys (National Institute for Educational Policy Research, 2004a,
2006), it was found out that the diversity in mathematical achievement of elemen-
tary and secondary school students has been increasing. Moreover, as a result of the
international PISA 2003 survey (National Institute for Educational Policy Research,
2004b, 2004c; OECD, 2003), students in Japan are weak in their ability to making
use of school mathematics in real-world contexts surrounding them, and many stu-
dents are in difficulties for explaining their thinking processes and judgments with
mathematical representations in a written form.

9.4.2.1 Mathematics Curriculum Policy (MCP)

In February 2006, the Japan Government amended the Fundamental Law of Educa-
tion established first in 1947 and the School Education Law. It is a very important
fact for the MCP that the Japan Government amended the Fundamental Law of Edu-
cation and the School Education Law to include a clause that explicitly emphasizes
the importance of “acquiring basic knowledge and skills, cultivating thinking–judg-
ing–representing ability, and fostering positive attitude toward learning” in school
education. There is no doubt that the issues concerning mathematics curriculum and
students’ mathematical performance identified by the TIMSS and the PISA (National
Institute for Educational Policy Research, 2004c) influenced the changes of education
law, general education policy, and curriculum policy in Japan. The latest curriculum
revision based on the general curriculum policy emphasizes three points: (a) foster-
ing “Zest for Living,” (b) balancing the acquisition of basic knowledge and skills
with the cultivation of a thinking–judging–representing ability, and (c) fostering an
open mind and healthy body by enriching moral and physical education (Ministry
of Education, 2008b, 2008c).
In March 2008, the Ministry of Education, on the basis of a final report submitted
by the Central Education Council, revised the MCS for elementary and lower sec-
ondary schools (Ministry of Education, 2008a), and then implemented in April 2011
for all grades in elementary schools (Ministry of Education, 2008b), and in April
2012 for all grades in lower secondary schools (Ministry of Education, 2008c).
9 Issues of Mathematics Curriculum in Japan: Changing Curriculum … 181

9.4.2.2 Curriculum Standards for Mathematics (MCS)

Table 9.3 shows the change of the number of hours for mathematics in elementary
school. Table 9.4 shows the change of the number of hours for lower secondary
school mathematics. In comparing the MCS 2008 with the MCS 1998, 16% of the
total hour for six years in elementary school was increased, and 22% was increased
up throughout three years in lower secondary school. When we compare Table 9.1
with Table 9.3, and Table 9.2 with Table 9.4, we notice that the total hour in the MCS
2008 is same as the total in the MCS 1989 except for one difference identified in
the number of hours for Grade 7 and Grade 8. The difference reflects the MCP such
that in learning mathematics 7th graders should have more time to make a smooth
transition from elementary school to lower secondary school.
In order to understand the reason why such a decision was made by the Ministry
of Education, we have to know what issues were recognized by the Ministry in 2008
when the revision of the MCS was discussed on in the Curriculum Subdivision meet-
ings. Here we must pay attention to the fact that in April 2007 (at the beginning of
new school year in Japan), the Ministry of Education started a huge-scale national
survey of all 6th graders’ and all 9th graders’ mathematical performance by using
original test items of both TIMSS and PISA type developed by the National Institute
for Educational Policy Research in Japan (National Institute for Educational Policy
Research, 2007). As a result of the international PISA 2003 survey (National Insti-
tute for Educational Policy Research, 2004b, 2004c; OECD, 2003) and the national
2007 mathematical performance survey (National Institute for Educational Policy
Research, 2007), the Ministry recognized the following issues that should be over-

Table 9.3 Standard school Grade 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total

hours a year for elementary
school mathematics The MCS 114 155 150 150 150 150 869
1998
The MCS 136 175 175 175 175 175 1011
2008
Notes (1) The one unit school hour is a class period of 45 min
(2) The standard number of school weeks per year is 34 weeks for
Grade 1 and 35 weeks for the Grades 2–6

Table 9.4 Standard school Grade 7 8 9 Total

hours a year for lower
secondary school The MCS 1998 105 105 105 315
mathematics The MCS 2008 140 105 140 385
Notes (1) The one unit school hour is a class period of 50 min
(2) The standard number of school weeks per year is 35 weeks for
all Grades 7–9
(3) In the MCS 1998 mathematics can be taken as one of several
optional subjects at each grade, in addition to mathematics as a
compulsory subject prescribed in this table
182 M. Koyama

come in the process of revising the MCS 1998 in order to improve the teaching and
learning of mathematics in schools (Ministry of Education, 2008b, 2008c).
(1) The teaching style for mathematics is still a teacher-centered approach, and
students’ mathematical activities are not realized enough.
(2) Many students are in difficulties for explaining their thinking processes and
judgments with mathematical representations in a written form.
(3) Students are weak in their ability to making use of school mathematics in real-
world contexts surrounding them.
(4) While the students’ average score in mathematics is relatively high, many stu-
dents lack confidence in their own ability to do mathematics, do not have the
positive attitude toward mathematics, and do not appreciate the value of learning
school mathematics.

9.4.2.3 Mathematics Curriculum Framework (MCF)

The Ministry of Education added new phrases into the overall objectives of the MCS
2008 such as “express with good perspective,” “in their learning,” “represent,” and
“thinking and judging” as follows (Ministry of Education, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c).
Elementary school mathematics (The MCS 2008)
Through mathematical activities, to help pupils acquire basic and fundamental
knowledge and skills regarding numbers, quantities and geometrical figures, to foster
their ability to think and express with good perspectives and logically on matters of
everyday life, to help pupils find pleasure in mathematical activities and appreciate
the value of mathematical approaches, and to foster an attitude to willingly make use
of mathematics in their daily lives as well as in their learning.
Lower secondary school mathematics (The MCS 2008)
Through mathematical activities, to help students deepen their understanding of fun-
damental concepts, principles and rules regarding numbers, quantities, geometrical
figures, and so forth, to help students acquire the way of mathematical representation
and processing, to develop their ability to think and represent phenomena mathe-
matically, to help students enjoy their mathematical activities and appreciate the
value of mathematics, and to foster their attitude toward making use of the acquired
mathematical understanding and ability for their thinking and judging.
The newly added phrases reflect the changes in Fundamental Law of Education
and the School Education Law in February 2006. In the MCS 2008, mathematics
education in elementary and lower secondary school is more emphasized than the
MCS 1998 by the national education policy such as the enrichment of mathematics
and science education and the enrichment of language activities advised in the final
report of the Central Education Council. In fact, the standard number of hours for
school mathematics was increased to same level of the MCS 1989. In accordance with
the increase in the number of hours, the moved or removed mathematical contents in
the MCS 1998 came back to elementary and lower secondary school mathematics,
9 Issues of Mathematics Curriculum in Japan: Changing Curriculum … 183

and new mathematical content of statistics were added to the MCS 2008 for lower
secondary school mathematics (Ministry of Education, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c).
The MCS 2008 emphasizes students’ mathematical activities in the teaching
and learning of mathematics so that through their mathematical activities, students
acquire fundamental mathematical knowledge and skills, cultivate their thinking—
judging–representing ability, and foster their positive attitude toward learning math-
ematics. In particular, for the first time, the MCS 2008 incorporates mathematical
activities into the mathematics curriculum for Grades 1–9 as “content” to be taught
and learned like other content areas. For example, in the case of lower secondary
school mathematics (Fig. 9.3), in learning each content of “A. numbers and alge-
braic expressions,” “B. geometrical figures,” “C. functions,” and “D. making use of
data,” and in learning the connection of these contents, students should be provided
with opportunities to do mathematical activities like the following: (a) activities for
finding out and developing the properties of numbers and geometrical figures based
on previously learned mathematics, (b) activities for making use of mathematics in
daily life and society, and (c) activities for explaining and communicating to each
other in an evidenced, coherent and logical manner by using mathematical represen-
tations (Ministry of Education, 2008c). This description explains how the MCP is
embedded within the overall education policy in Japan, and how the MCP changes
in response to the students’ mathematical performance in the national survey and the
PISA survey from the perspective of internationalization or globalization.

9.5 Summary and Conclusion

In this chapter, first, we have presented one cycle of revising school curriculum in
Japan. Figure 9.1 shows one cycle of revising the MCS of three steps as follows.
Step 1: In the Ministry of Education, a Central Education Council is established
to discuss on the government’s request for advice and submit a report on education
policy in general for changing/reforming education in schools. Then, a Curriculum
Subdivision is established to submit a report on curriculum policy for advising on the
revision and development of curriculum standards according to the Central Education
Council’s report.
Step 2: After receiving the Curriculum Subdivision’s guideline for revising cur-
riculum, with the support of special working groups for school mathematics, the
Ministry of Education compiles the Course of Study (CS) for school mathematics
(MCS). Furthermore, with the support of the WG for school mathematics, the Min-
istry compiles curriculum guidebooks in which the objectives and contents of school
mathematics are explained in detail.
Step 3: After the notice of the new MCS by the Ministry of Education, textbook
companies begin to make a new series of mathematics textbook for schools. The Min-
istry gives about three years of transition measures to schools/teachers for making
a smooth shift from the old MCS to the new MCS. During the period of transi-
tion measures, schools and teachers make an adjusted mathematics curriculum and
184 M. Koyama

Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9

A. Numbers and Algebraic Expressions

B. Geometrical Figures

C. Functions

D. Making Use of Data

Mathematical Activities

(a) Activities for finding out and

developing the properties of numbers
and geometrical figures based on
previously learned mathematics
(b) Activities for making use of
mathematics in daily life and society
(c) Activities for explaining and
communicating to each other in an
evidenced, coherent and logical manner
by using mathematical representations

Fig. 9.3 Mathematics curriculum framework (MCF) for lower secondary school in 2008

teach students mathematics to avoid any disadvantages that might be caused by the
curriculum revision for their students.
Second, we have looked at a brief history of Japan mathematics curricula. The
MCS has been revised and reissued approximately once every ten years from 1947.
The main features of the curriculum revision are summarized with a word of math-
ematics curriculum policy. Although there are the immutable in mathematics cur-
riculum throughout the long history of mathematics education in schools from 1947
to the present, in each period we see the unique vogue of mathematics curriculum
9 Issues of Mathematics Curriculum in Japan: Changing Curriculum … 185

reformed by certain mathematics curriculum policy as indicated above (Step 1). In

the process of revising mathematics curriculum for schools, it is important and dif-
ficult for agents to make an appropriate balance between the immutable and the
vogue in school mathematics curriculum for those young students who are living in
a rapid-changing and uncertain global society in the world (Step 2).
Third, we focused on these two steps and have analyzed a relationship between
changing a curriculum policy and developing a curriculum framework for school
mathematics with two cases of recent revision cycle of Japan mathematics curriculum
for elementary and lower secondary schools from the MCS 1989 to the MCS 2008. In
the analysis, we used a simple version of the framework for analyzing mathematics
curriculum policy (Wong et al., 2013). Our analysis used the MCS 1989 as a starting
point and went to two revision cycles of mathematics curriculum from the MCS
1989 to the MCS 1998, then to the MCS 2008. In this order, we have discussed
the problematic aspects of developing a mathematics curriculum framework (MCF)
in order to embody the changed mathematics curriculum policy (MCP) into new
curriculum standards for mathematics (MCS).
As a result of the revision cycle of the MCS 1989 that led to the MCS 1998, the
MCS 1998 emphasized students’ mathematical activities and their positive attitudes
toward mathematics leading to cultivating their basis of creativity, reflecting the MCP
of two basic principles for changing school mathematics. The overall objectives for
school mathematics in the MCS 1998 become richer than the MCS 1989. On the
other hand, in order to cope with the five-day week schooling system and the new
course of “integrated study,” the Ministry removed about 30% of the mathematical
content so as to foster students’ positive attitude toward mathematics and provide
students with time for doing mathematical activities that might promote their creative
thinking in the limited time (Ministry of Education, 1999a, 1999b). Figure 9.2 shows
the mathematics curriculum framework (MCF) for lower secondary school in 1998.
In the revision cycle of the MCS 1998 that led to the MCS 2008, the Japan Gov-
ernment amended the Fundamental Law of Education and the School Education Law
in February 2006. In the MCS 2008, mathematics education in elementary and lower
secondary school is more emphasized than the MCS 1998 by the national educa-
tion policy such as the enrichment of mathematics and science education and the
enrichment of language activities advised in the final report of the Central Education
Council. In fact, the standard number of hours for school mathematics was increased
to same level of the MCS 1989. The MCS 2008 emphasizes students’ mathematical
activities in the teaching and learning of mathematics so that through their mathe-
matical activities, students acquire fundamental mathematical knowledge and skills,
cultivate their thinking–judging–representing ability, and foster their positive attitude
toward learning mathematics. In particular, for the first time, the MCS 2008 incor-
porates mathematical activities into the mathematics curriculum for Grades 1–9 as
“content” to be taught and learned as other content areas (Ministry of Education,
2008a, 2008b, 2008c). Figure 9.3 shows the mathematics curriculum framework
(MCF) for lower secondary school in 2008.
When we reflect on the two revision cycles of the MCS in Japan, we realize how
the MCS is restricted by the national education policy and the MCP. Even though the
186 M. Koyama

conflicting phenomenon about students’ relatively high achievement and negative

attitude toward mathematics is not new in Japan, the Ministry of Education on the
one hand cut off the number of hours for elementary and lower secondary school
mathematics in the MCS 1998, on the other hand increased the number of hours
for school mathematics in the MCS 2008. In the revision cycle led to the MCS
2008, with the input from the WG for secondary school mathematics, the Ministry
developed the MCF represented in Fig. 9.3. It is a noticeable feature of the MCF
that mathematical activities are incorporated into the mathematics curriculum as a
“content” to be taught and learned as other content areas. We need to evaluate the
effectiveness of the MCF through seeing both students’ activities in their processes
of learning mathematics and their mathematical attainment as a result. In Japan,
as mentioned above, the Ministry of Education has been continuing the huge-scale
national survey of all 6th graders’ and all 9th graders’ mathematical performance
by using original test items of both TIMSS and PISA type since 2007. It is a keen
issue of the mathematics curriculum policy for agents to use, analyze, and interpret
an accumulated data in making the new education policy, changing the MCP, and
developing the appropriate MCF which will embody the changed MCP into the new
MCS for those young students who are living in the so-called knowledge-based
society in the world.

9.6 Author’s Disclaimer

The views expressed in this chapter are those of the author’s and do not necessarily
reflect the official views of the Ministry of Education in Japan.

References

Dossey, J. A., Halvorsen, K. T., & McCrone, S. S. (Eds.). (2012). Mathematics education in the
United States 2012. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Koyama, M. (2008). Current issues impacting on mathematics education in Japan. Bulletin of the
Graduate School of Education, Hiroshima University, 57(2), 29–38.
Koyama, M. (2010). Mathematics curriculum in Japan. In F. K. S. Leung & Y. Li (Eds.), Reforms and
issues in school mathematics in East Asia: Sharing and understanding mathematics education
policies and practices (pp. 59–78). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Leung, F. K. S., & Li, Y. (Eds.). (2010). Reforms and issues in school mathematics in East Asia:
Sharing and understanding mathematics education policies and practices. Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan. (2008a). The Courses of
Study for elementary and lower secondary school. (In Japanese). Retrieved from http://www.
mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/new-cs/index.htm.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan. (2008b). Guidebook for
the elementary school mathematics in the Course of Study (2008). Tokyo: Toyokan Publisher. (In
Japanese).
9 Issues of Mathematics Curriculum in Japan: Changing Curriculum … 187

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan. (2008c). Guidebook for the
lower secondary school mathematics in the Course of Study (2008). Tokyo: Kyoiku Publisher.
(In Japanese).
Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, Japan. (1989). The Courses of Study for ele-
mentary and lower secondary school. (In Japanese). Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_
menu/shotou/new-cs/index.htm.
Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, Japan. (1998). The Courses of Study for ele-
mentary and lower secondary school. (In Japanese). Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_
menu/shotou/new-cs/index.htm.
Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, Japan. (1999a). Guidebook for the elementary
school mathematics in the Course of Study (1998). Tokyo: Toyokan Publisher. (In Japanese).
Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, Japan. (1999b). Guidebook for the lower sec-
ondary school mathematics in the Course of Study (1998). Osaka: Osakashoseki Publisher. (In
Japanese).
Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, Japan. (2000). Education in Japan 2000: A
graphical presentation (13th ed.). Tokyo: Gyosei Corporation.
Nakahara, T., Fujii, T., & Koyama, M. (2000). Brief guidance to Japanese mathematics education.
In T. Nakahara & M. Koyama (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th conference of the international
group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 227–232). Hiroshima: Hiroshima
University.
National Institute for Educational Policy Research, Japan. (2001). International comparison in
mathematics and science education: A report on the TIMSS-R. Tokyo: Gyosei Corporation. (In
Japanese).
National Institute for Educational Policy Research, Japan. (2004a). Report on the survey of imple-
mentation of curriculum in upper secondary schools in 2003. Tokyo: Center for Curriculum
Research in National Institute for Educational Policy Research. (In Japanese).
National Institute for Educational Policy Research, Japan. (2004b). The PISA 2003 assessment
framework: Mathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge and skills. Tokyo:
Gyosei Corporation. [This is the Japanese translation of OECD (2003)].
National Institute for Educational Policy Research, Japan. (2004c). Report on the international
result of the OECD 2003 PISA survey. Tokyo: Gyosei Corporation. (In Japanese).
National Institute for Educational Policy Research, Japan. (2006). Report on the survey of specified
tasks in elementary and lower secondary schools mathematics. Tokyo: Center for Curriculum
Research in National Institute for Educational Policy Research. (In Japanese).
National Institute for Educational Policy Research, Japan. (2007). Report on the 2007 national
survey of elementary and lower secondary schools mathematics. Tokyo: Center for Curriculum
Research in National Institute for Educational Policy Research. (In Japanese).
OECD. (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework: Mathematics, reading, science and problem
solving knowledge and skills. Paris: OECD.
Thompson, D. R., Kaur, B., Koyama, M., & Bleiler, S. (2013). A longitudinal view of mathematics
achievement of primary students: Case studies from Japan, Singapore, and the United States.
ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(1), 73–89.
Wong, K. Y., Koyama, M., & Lee, K. H. (2013). Mathematics curriculum policies: A framework
with case studies from Japan, Korea, and Singapore. In Y. Li & G. Lappan (Eds.), Mathematics
curriculum in school education (in press). The Netherlands: Springer.

Masataka Koyama is the Dean of Graduate School of Education and a Professor of Mathemat-
ics Education at Hiroshima University, Japan. He received his B.Ed., M.Ed., and Ph.D. degrees
in Education from Hiroshima University. His major scholarly interests are students’ mathematical
understanding, international comparative study on students’ mathematical attainments, mathemat-
ics teachers’ professional development, and school mathematics curricula and textbooks.
Chapter 10
Implementation of School-Based
Assessment (SBA) in Malaysian Primary
Mathematics Curriculum: Issues
and Challenges

Chap Sam Lim and Cheng Meng Chew

Abstract The latest curriculum reform in Malaysia sees the implementation of the
Primary School Standard Curriculum (KSSR in Bahasa Malaysia) in stages start-
ing with Year One pupils in 2011. The major change in this curriculum is that its
assessment will be more holistic and less examination oriented for the pupils. Con-
sequently, the School-Based Assessment (SBA) was officially introduced by the
Malaysian Ministry of Education to evaluate pupils’ progress in line with the new
KSSR curriculum. The rationales behind the implementation of SBA include the fol-
lowing: (1) to achieve the aspiration of the National Philosophy of Education toward
developing pupils’ physical, emotional, spiritual, and intellectual abilities; (2) to
reduce examination-oriented learning among pupils; (3) to evaluate pupils’ learning
progress; and (4) to enhance teachers’ integrity in assessing, recording, and reporting
of pupils’ learning. Under this new assessment approach, teachers are given greater
responsibility to design quality assessments that align with their pupils’ learning out-
comes. However, since its implementation in schools till now, various complaints,
setback, issues, and challenges have been heard in particular among the KSSR teach-
ers. A small-scale survey was carried out to identify the issues and problems faced
by a sample of 150 KSSR primary mathematics teachers. Hence, based on document
search and the small-scale study, this chapter will begin with a brief discussion on the
implementation of the KSSR and SBA, particularly related to primary mathematics
curriculum, followed with a report of the issues and challenges faced by teachers in
implementing SBA in primary mathematics curriculum. Possible recommendations
and resolution will be suggested at the end of chapter.

10.1 Introduction

Curriculum reform is an inevitable part of any education system. To ensure quality

and effective education, ideally, curriculum should be reformed every five to 10 years

C. S. Lim · C. M. Chew (B)

School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 189

C. P. Vistro-Yu and T. L. Toh (eds.), School Mathematics Curricula,
Mathematics Education – An Asian Perspective,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6312-2_10
190 C. S. Lim and C. M. Chew

as the world is constantly changing. We would like to prepare our future generations
that are capable to cope with and live well in any future challenges. Nevertheless,
whether minor or major reforms, as with any new changes or innovation, there are
bound to have issues and challenges to be addressed.
In 2011, Malaysia has its latest curriculum reform in the implementation of the
Primary School Standard Curriculum (KSSR in Bahasa Malaysia) in stages starting
with Year One pupils. The major change in this curriculum is that its assessment
will be more holistic and less examination oriented for the pupils. Consequently,
the School-Based Assessment (SBA) was officially introduced by the Malaysian
Ministry of Education to evaluate pupils’ progress in line with the new KSSR cur-
riculum. The SBA was officially introduced by the Malaysian Ministry of Education
in primary schools starting with Year One pupils in 2011, and in secondary schools,
beginning with Form One students in 2012 (Lembaga Peperiksaan, 2012).
In this chapter, we will begin by describing the aims, rationales, and the process
of the implementation of the School-Based Assessment (SBA) particularly related
to primary mathematics curriculum. A small-scale survey has been carried out to
identify the issues and problems faced by some 150 KSSR primary mathematics
teachers. Thus, the second part of the chapter will focus on reporting the study and
discussion of the findings, mainly the issues and challenges faced by teachers in
implementing SBA in primary mathematics curriculum. At the end of chapter, we
hope to suggest some possible recommendations and resolutions.

10.2 What is SBA?

In Malaysia, the SBA is a holistic assessment which evaluates the cognitive, affec-
tive, and psychomotor aspects of pupils’ learning in accordance with the National
Education Philosophy and the national curriculum. The SBA is carried out by the
subject teachers in primary and secondary schools continuously during the teach-
ing and learning process according to the Primary School Standard Curriculum and
Secondary School Standard Curriculum, respectively.
The SBA has two main components, namely Academic and Non-academic, as
shown in Fig. 10.1. The Academic category consists of Centralized Assessment
(Pentaksiran Pusat) and School Assessment (Pentaksiran Sekolah), while the Non-
academic category consists of Physical Activities, Sports, and Co-curricular Assess-
ment (Pentaksiran Aktiviti Jasmani, Sukan dan Kokurikulum) as well as Psychome-
tric Assessment (Pentaksiran Psikometrik). Both components give recognition and
autonomy to teachers to implement school-based formative and summative assess-
ments in their schools (Lembaga Peperiksaan, 2012).
Centralized Assessment refers to the assessments that are administered, exam-
ined, and recorded at schools by teachers based on the assessment rules, assessment
instruments, assignments, guidelines, scoring and grading regulations, Performance
Standards and quality assurance through monitoring and coordination issued by the
Examination Board within the prescribed period according to subjects. The reporting
10 Implementation of School-Based Assessment (SBA) in Malaysian … 191

School Based
Assessment

Academic Non-academic

Physical AcƟviƟes,
Centralised Sports and Co- Psychometric
School Assessment
Assessment curricular Assessment
Assessment

Fig. 10.1 Components of SBA. Source Lembaga Peperiksaan (2012, p. 4)

of the results will be carried out by the Examination Board. Centralized Assessment
is conducted using a variety of methods (Examination Board, 2012) such as (i)
Coursework; (ii) Projects; (iii) Oral Tests (Core and Elective Subjects); (iv) Assign-
ments and Folios; (v) Observations; (vi) Practical skills; (vii) Oral Presentations and
Performances; and (viii) Written tests (Core Subjects). The principles of Central-
ized Assessment at the primary and lower secondary schools are as follows: (i) The
Examination Board provides the format and assessment tasks; (ii) The assignments
vary each year; (iii) The assessments are carried out in schools; (iv) The time period
for the implementation of the assessments is fixed for selected subjects from the core
and compulsory subjects; (v) Assessed by subject teachers; (vi) Scores are based
on the Performance Standards set by the Examination Board; (vii) Monitoring and
coordination are carried out at the internal and external levels to ensure quality and
standards, and (viii) The reports of Centralized Assessment and School Assessment
are combined at the end of the school year for primary and lower secondary schools
(Lembaga Peperiksaan, 2012).
The formative and summative assessments that are planned, developed, admin-
istered, examined, recorded, and reported by teachers of the schools concerned are
categorized as School Assessment. Formative assessments are carried out in line
with the teaching and learning process. Examples of assessment instruments that can
be used in formative assessments by teachers are worksheets, observations, quizzes,
checklists, assignment reports, homework, and tests. Summative assessments are
conducted by teachers at the end of each learning unit, term, month, and year. In
short, School Assessment serves as an assessment for learning and an assessment
of learning. Briefly, the process of School Assessment is as follows: (1) identify the
constructs or the matters to be assessed; (2) plan, select, develop, and administer
assessment instruments that provide opportunities for pupils to exhibit or present
192 C. S. Lim and C. M. Chew

work that is relevant; (3) evaluate the pupils’ work with reference to the descriptors
and evidence in the Performance Standards in order to determine the pupils’ level of
mastery; (4) provide feedback to pupils on their performance based on their strengths
and weaknesses and to plan and implement improvements, and (5) record the per-
formance in the portfolios for the reference of teachers, administrators, pupils, and
parents (Lembaga Peperiksaan, 2012).
Physical Activities, Sports, and Co-curricular Assessment refers to the assess-
ments that are administered, recorded, and reported at the school level by teachers
based on pupils’ participation, involvement and achievement in physical activities,
sports, and co-curricular activities. In the implementation of Physical Activities,
Sports, and Co-curricular Assessment, each student is required to take part in the
activities that are planned and determined by the teachers either in the classroom or
outside the classroom according to pupils’ abilities and the suitability of the activity.
The assessment instruments are provided by the Examination Board in collabora-
tion with related professional bodies or agencies according to their expertise. The
instruments are administered and handled by the teachers in schools. The physi-
cal activities are measured based on the following Physical Performance Standards:
(i) Physical Education Activities Assessment Guide; (ii) Body Mass Index (BMI)
Report Format; (iii) National Physical Fitness Standards; and (iv) Healthcare Crite-
ria Standards. The co-curricular activities are measured based on the Co-curricular
Performance Standards such as: (i) Fitness (e.g., going up and down the bench,
BMI); (ii) Health (observations, Health Record Book); (iii) Participation (member-
ship, attendance); (iv) Involvement (post, commitment, level); and (iv) Performance
(achievement, contribution) (Lembaga Peperiksaan, 2012).
The assessments that are carried out in schools to measure abilities (innate abilities
and acquired abilities), thinking skills, problem-solving skills, interests, aptitudes,
attitudes and personality of students are categorized as Psychometric Assessment.
This assessment is not based on the curriculum and teaching and learning process.
The Examination Board provides comprehensive and user-friendly test manuals for
this type of assessment. The Psychometric Assessment instruments are developed
by psychometric experts and psychologists. The instruments are administered as
needed, either manually or computerized, by the teachers or the pupils themselves.
The assessment reports are in descriptive form. The types of Psychometric Assess-
ment that are implemented in primary and lower secondary schools are as follows
(Lembaga Peperiksaan, 2012):
(i) General Aptitude Test which measures a combination of abilities related to: (a)
visual-spatial; (b) linguistics/verbal; (c) logical-mathematical/numerical; and
(d) interest and inclination.
(ii) Specific Aptitude Test which measures specific abilities related to potential
students in a specific field or occupation: (a) musical; (b) creativity; (c) inter-
personal; (d) intrapersonal; (e) kinesthetic-physical; and (f) naturalist.
(iii) Personality Inventory which measures behavioral characteristics that are unique
and stable in each individual to distinguish him/her from the others: (a) help
teachers identify the attitude and personality aspects of individual pupils so
10 Implementation of School-Based Assessment (SBA) in Malaysian … 193

that appropriate teaching strategies can be used; (b) help pupils to understand
his/her personality and that of others for interaction purposes; and (c) identify
learning styles.

10.3 When and Why SBA?

The SBA was officially introduced by the Malaysian Ministry of Education in pri-
mary schools starting with Year One pupils in 2011, and in secondary schools, begin-
ning with Form One students in 2012 (Lembaga Peperiksaan, 2012). The rationales
behind the implementation of SBA are: (1) to achieve the aspiration of the National
Philosophy of Education toward developing pupils’ physical, emotional, spiritual,
and intellectual abilities; (2) to reduce examination-oriented learning among pupils;
(3) to evaluate pupils’ learning progress; and (4) to enhance teachers’ integrity in
assessing, recording, and reporting of pupils’ learning. Under this new assessment
approach, teachers are given greater responsibility to design quality assessments that
align with their pupils’ learning outcomes (Naimah, 2011).

10.4 Implementation of SBA

The SBA was implemented according to the timetables set by the Examination Board.
Table 10.1 shows the components of SBA that were implemented at Level 1 (Years
1, 2, and 3) in the three types of primary schools [National Schools or Sekolah
Kebangsaan (SK), National Type Chinese Schools or Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan
Cina (SJKC), and National Type Tamil Schools or Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan Tamil
(SJKT)] from 2011. Table 10.2 shows the components of SBA that were implemented
at Level 2 (Years 4, 5, and 6) in the three types of primary schools from 2014.
Table 10.3 shows the components of SBA that were implemented in Forms 1, 2, and
3 in secondary schools from 2012.
The implementation of SBA was guided by the School-Based Assessment Guide,
Performance Standards Document [DSP] and SBA Management System Manual
provided by the Examination Board. To support the implementation of the SBA,
ICT will be used as an enabler for the SBA data management (e.g., the collection
of achievement marks, data processing, and reporting) to be carried out efficiently
and effectively at all levels. Thus, the Examination Board has set up the online
SBA Management System for the purpose of recording and storing academic and
non-academic data. The stored data can be automated efficiently and effectively for
producing reports, whether at school level, District Education Office, State Education
Department, or Ministry of Education. All students must be registered in the SBA
Management System (Lembaga Peperiksaan, 2012).
The SBA standards and quality assurance is implemented to ensure that the scores
are valid and have high reliability and can be expected to follow the framework and
194 C. S. Lim and C. M. Chew

Table 10.1 Implementation of SBA at Level 1 in primary schools

Components of SBA Subjects
School assessment Malay Language Visual Arts Education
English Language Music Education
Chinese Language Science and Technology
Tamil Language World
Mathematics Arabic Language
Physical Education Chinese Language (SK)
Health Education Tamil Language (SK)
Islamic Education Kadazandusun Language
Moral Education Iban Language
Malay Language (SJKC and
SJKT)
English Language (SJKC and
SJKT)
Physical activities, sports, and None
co-curricular assessment
Psychometric assessment None
Centralized assessment None
Source Lembaga Peperiksaan (2012, p. 6)

Table 10.2 Implementation of SBA at Level 2 in primary schools

Components of SBA Subjects
School assessment Malay Language Music Education
English Language Visual Arts Education
Chinese Language Islamic Education
Tamil Language Moral Education
Mathematics History
Science Arabic Language
Design and Technology Chinese Language (SK)
Information and Tamil Language (SK)
Communication Technology Kadazandusun Language
Physical Education Iban Language
Health Education Semai Language
Physical activities, sports, and Physical activities, sports, co-curricular and extra-curricular
co-curricular assessment activities
Psychometric assessment General Aptitude Test and Personality Test
Centralized assessment Implemented for subjects set by the Examination Board
Source Lembaga Peperiksaan (2012, p. 7)
10 Implementation of School-Based Assessment (SBA) in Malaysian … 195

Table 10.3 Implementation of SBA in Forms 1, 2 and 3

Components of SBA Subjects
School assessment Malay Language Music Education
English Language Civics and Citizenship
Arabic Language Education
Chinese Language Health and Physical
Tamil Language Education
Iban Language Integrated Living Skills
Kadazandusun Language – Technical Skills
Mathematics – Home Economics
Science – Agriculture
Islamic Education – Trade and
Moral Education Entrepreneurship
History
Geography
Visual Arts Education
Physical activities, sports, and Beginning in Form 1 from 2012
co-curricular assessment
Psychometric assessment Specific Aptitude Test and Personality Test
Centralized assessment Implemented for the following subjects in Forms 2 and 3
Malay Language Music Education
English Language Civics and Citizenship
Arabic Language Education
Chinese Language Health and Physical
Tamil Language Education
Iban Language Integrated Living Skills
Kadazandusun Language – Technical Skills
Mathematics – Home Economics
Science – Agriculture
Islamic Education – Trade and
Moral Education Entrepreneurship
History
Geography
Visual Arts Education
Source Lembaga Peperiksaan (2012, p. 8)

procedures set by the Examination Board. The four aspects of quality control that
must be adhered to and implemented by the State Education Department, District
Education Office, and schools are as follows (Lembaga Peperiksaan, 2012):
(1) Coordination, which ensures consistency and understanding of the SBA imple-
mentation rules from the federal, states, districts to schools in terms of docu-
mentation and assessment guidelines so that the reliability of the assessments
can be guaranteed in terms of standards and quality.
(2) Monitoring, which is carried out to obtain information and ensure that the
implementation of the SBA is in accordance with the procedures and schedules
set by the Examination Board in order to have validity and reliability. The
validity and reliability of the SBA can be ensured through the implementation
196 C. S. Lim and C. M. Chew

of a monitoring mechanism using standard and uniform instruments provided

by the Examination Board.
(3) Detection, which is carried out to assess the SBA in terms of achieving the
objectives, strengths, and weaknesses of the instruments and its impact for the
purpose of improving the components of SBA. Detection is carried out at the
federal, state, district, and school levels.
(4) Mentoring, which is a process of guiding and advising in the form of prepara-
tion, training, and monitoring to ensure that the SBA can be implemented by the
responsible parties in accordance with the procedures specified by the Exami-
nation Board. Mentoring is carried out continuously with the Assessment Key
Coaches to strengthen and improve the knowledge, insight, and understanding
regarding the assessments that are planned, managed, examined, and recorded
during the implementation of the SBA in the primary and lower secondary
schools.

10.5 The Study

A small-scale survey study was conducted by the third author of this chapter, Thi-
lakavathy (2013) on 150 primary mathematics teachers who were currently teaching
the classes using the Standards-based Primary School Curriculum (KSSR in Bahasa
Malaysia). The main aim of the survey was to identify the issues and problems faced
by these teachers during the implementation of School-Based Assessment (SBA) in
line with the KSSR.

10.6 Objectives of the Study

Specifically, the objectives of the study are as follows:

(a) To identify the primary mathematics teachers’ level of understanding of SBA;
(b) To identify the primary mathematics teachers’ problems and challenges in
implementing SBA in the teaching and learning of mathematics.

10.7 Sample

Malaysians are made up of three major ethnic groups: Malays, Chinese, and Indians.
To cater for the linguistic needs of the different ethnic groups, there are three types of
primary schools for the parents to choose to enroll their children. These schools are
(i) National Schools or Sekolah Kebangsaan (SK) where the medium of instruction is
the Malay language, (ii) National Type Chinese Schools or Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan
10 Implementation of School-Based Assessment (SBA) in Malaysian … 197

Cina (SJKC) where the medium of instruction is Mandarin and (iii) National Type
Tamil Schools or Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan Tamil (SJKT) where the medium of
instruction is the Tamil language. Regardless of the differences in the medium of
instruction, all primary schools employ the same primary mathematics curriculum
standards.
To identify if there are any differences in knowledge, practices, issues, and chal-
lenges faced by these teachers in the different types of schools, the sample of the
study was stratified to include the following factors: types of schools, gender, eth-
nicity, and years of teaching experience. Table 10.4 displays the demographic data
of the sample.
As shown in Table 10.4, the number of female teachers was almost triple that of
male teachers in the sample and this ratio is of no surprise as it reflects the current
gender composition of primary school teachers in Malaysian schools. According to
the statistics of Malaysian Ministry of Education (2013), nearly 70% of primary
school teachers are females while 30% are males. Particularly in SJKC, the majority
of the teachers are females.
Likewise, the data represent the current situation of mathematics teachers from
the different types of school, with SK dominated by Malays; SJKC by Chinese and
SJKT by Indians. This domination was influenced by the difference in medium of
instruction in these schools as discussed in the earlier part of this section.
Nevertheless, it was an encouraging sign to notice that the majority of the sam-
ple was from the categories of senior teachers with teaching experience more than
11 years in all the three types of schools.

Table 10.4 Demography of the sample

Variable Types of primary schools Total
SK SJKC SJKT
Gender Male 25 0 15 40
Female 43 36 31 110
Ethnicity Malay 67 0 0 67
Chinese 1 36 0 37
Indian 0 0 46 46
Years of teaching experience <10 years 14 0 0 14
11–20 23 20 14 47
21–30 22 3 26 51
>30 years 19 13 6 38
Total 68 36 46 150
198 C. S. Lim and C. M. Chew

10.8 Method of Data Collection

The study employed mainly a survey questionnaire to collect the data. The ques-
tionnaire was designed by Thilakavathy (2013) based on the current literature and
official documents. The questionnaire consisted of three major sections. The first
section asks for respondents’ demographic data such as gender, ethnic group, aca-
demic qualification, and years of teaching experience. The second section comprised
of 12 multiple choice items which aimed to assess the respondents’ level of under-
standing about SBA. The third section contains three key questions asking about
respondents’ opinion about the development of SBA instrument, problems faced in
preparing the SBA files, and the use of the online School-Based Assessment Manage-
ment System [SPPBS]. Data collected from the questionnaire were analyzed using
SPSS version 20.

10.9 Findings and Discussion

In this section, we will report and discuss the results of the analysis according to the
research objectives.

10.9.1 Research Objective 1: Level of Understanding of SBA

Table 10.5 presents the percentage of correct scores in the second section of the ques-
tionnaire that asked about the respondents’ level of understanding of SBA. As shown
in Table 10.5, it was encouraging that more than 85% of the respondents recognize
the roles of standard performance in SBA but only less than 60% of the respondents
were able to identify correctly the objectives of SBA and aims of DSP. More sur-
prisingly, only about one-third (34%) of the respondents were able to identify the
objectives of KSSR correctly. Although almost everyone (except one respondent) can
differentiate the basic symbol for band, descriptor, and evidence, less than half of
them can differentiate rightly the level 3 and level 4 statements as well as methods of
constructing evidence. These results indicate that the teachers’ level of understand-
ing of SBA is still below satisfactory level. One would expect at least 80% of the
teachers have good understanding about the objectives and roles of SBA as well as
the skills needed to identify the statements and the method of constructing evidence
to ensure a successful implementation of the SBA.
10 Implementation of School-Based Assessment (SBA) in Malaysian … 199

Table 10.5 Percentage of Item Questions Correct Percentage

correct score in section I score
about understanding of SBA
(n = 150) 1 Objectives of SBA 89 59.33
2 Roles of standard 128 85.33
performance in SBA
3 Aim of document 89 59.33
standard performance
(DSP)
4 Objectives of KSSR 51 34.00
mathematics
5 Identify level 3 74 49.33
statement
6 Identify level 2 95 63.33
statement
7 Identify level 4 38 25.33
statement
8 Method of constructing 64 42.67
evidence
9 Identify level 6 127 84.67
statement
10 Identify symbol for band 149 99.33
11 Identify symbol for 149 99.33
descriptor
12 Identify symbol for 149 99.33
evidence

10.9.2 Research Objective 2: Problems and Challenges

in Implementing SBA in the Teaching and Learning
of Mathematics

Analysis of the data shows that various issues and problems faced during implemen-
tation of SBA in schools can be categorized into the following three major aspects:
(a) Development of SBA instrument
About 82.7% (124 out of 150) respondents reported that the development of SBA
instrument has added extra workload for the teachers. This is because before the
implementation of SBA, teachers only prepared formative assessment (in terms of
monthly test) and summative assessment (mid-year and end of year examinations).
Now that teachers are expected to assess each pupil according to their individual
performance level after teaching each learning standard, this clearly demands much
more time and effort from the teachers. As a result, the majority of the respondents
admitted that they did not prepare the SBA instrument by themselves; instead, 83.3%
of them prepared the SBA instrument based on mathematics activity book (that
200 C. S. Lim and C. M. Chew

accompanied the text book provided by the MOE); 69.3% based on exercise books
that are sold in the market while 62% used worksheets photocopied from reference
books.
The above phenomenon may not be a surprise as more than half of these respon-
dents (as indicated in the results of the earlier section) have not mastered the skills
of identifying the different levels of statements and the method of constructing evi-
dence. In the midst of this challenge, they have opted for ready-made assessment
tools, albeit knowing that these tools might not fully serve the purpose of SBA.

(b) Problems faced in preparing SBA files

When asked about the problems faced in preparing the SBA files, 92% of the respon-
dents quoted that the SBA file system was tedious and time-consuming. This is
particularly problematic and time-consuming when the class size is large. Currently
the average class size in Malaysian schools ranges from 25 to 45 pupils per class.
It is understandable that when the class size is large, the amount of time needed
to assess each individual pupil would take a longer time. This issue becomes more
prominent if the pupils in a class are of various mastery levels. Consequently 78% of
the respondents agreed that they ended up with less time to coach the weaker pupils
as most of the time has been used in assessing rather than teaching. Hence, 62% of
these teachers have proposed the ideal class size as 20 pupils per class. Clearly, a
small class size will allow the teachers to have more time in observing and coaching
the pupils more effectively.

(c) The use of online SBA management system

As intended by the MOE, the implementation of SBA is guided by the School-Based

Assessment Guide, the Performance Standards Document, and the SBA Manage-
ment System Manual provided by the Examination Board. To further support the
implementation of the SBA, the Examination Board has set up the online SBA Man-
agement System [SPPBS] for the purpose of recording and storing academic and
non-academic data. This is to ensure the stored data can then be automated efficiently
and effectively for producing reports by the various parties at all levels: whether at
school level, District Education Office, State Education Department or Ministry of
Education. Every student is required to be registered in the SPPBS.
The use of SPPBS was supposedly to help the teachers to ease their burden and
to make their work more effective and efficient. However, in practice, the use of
SPPBS has burdened the teachers as what they have expressed in the questionnaire.
Table 10.6 displays the list of issues related to the use of SPPBS expressed by the
150 respondents.
As shown in Table 10.6, 86.7% of the respondents agreed that the use of online
SBA management system has increased their work load. The reasons might be that it
was too time-consuming to key in the student data online (81.3%) and this could link
to the problem of the online system which was not stable and frequently disconnected
(80.7%). Due to the time constraint, some teachers (76%) were forced to complete
the task at home. This has resulted in the majority of the teachers (76.7%) felt that
10 Implementation of School-Based Assessment (SBA) in Malaysian … 201

Table 10.6 Issues and problems related to the use of SPPBS

No Issue related to use of SPPBS Frequency%
1 The use of SPPBS has burdened teacher’s work load 130 86.7
2 Time taken to enter students’ performance data is too long 122 81.3
3 This online system is not stable and always interrupted when keying 121 80.7
in data
4 The SPPBS is not user-friendly 95 63.3
5 Keying in the standard performance online is redundant as the record 98 65.3
has already kept in the SBA file system
6 Teachers have limited time in school; thus, they are forced to 114 76.0
complete the online process at home
7 Most of the teachers’ time was used in managing files rather than 115 76.7
coaching the pupils

their time was being used in managing the files rather than coaching their pupils.
More than 63% of the respondents also commented that the online system was not
user-friendly and this might have added the time taken to access the online system.
In addition, 65% of them remarked that it was redundant and waste of time to record
the data into both the SBA file system and the online SPPBS. In sum, the use of
online SPPBS has created much more issues that need to be addressed promptly by
the authority.

10.10 Latest Development of SBA: Issues and Problems

Voiced Through Mass Media

At this moment of writing (4 Mar 2014), the latest news regarding the implementation
of SBA in Malaysian schools was the announcement by the Malaysian Education
director-general, Datuk Dr. Khair Mohamad Yusof that the SBA system has been put
on hold temporarily until 1 April 2014 (Kang, The Star Online, 24 February 2014).
He remarked that SBA is a good system that all Malaysian preferred as compared
to the traditional examination-oriented system. However, the present issue is more a
problem of implementation.
The above announcement appeared to be a response to the protest put up by 100
teachers led by the Malaysian Teacher Community Voices or Suara Guru Masyarakat
Malaysia (SGMM) against the government’s lack of effort to review the SBA system.
They have demanded for the abolishment of the SBA system (Kang, 22 February
2014). Consequently there were numerous newspaper headlines reporting the SBA
issues. A Google search of the words “SBA” or “PBS” and teachers in Malaysia has
resulted in more than 100 related articles in the various language newspaper in the
first two months of 2014.
202 C. S. Lim and C. M. Chew

In the following section, we summarized some of the issues and problems voiced
through the mass media:
(a) Lack of clear or coherent instruction from the Ministry of Education to the
State Education Department and to the District Education Office concerning
SBA. This has resulted in confusion and lack of coordination among the school
administrators and teachers about the proper implementation of the SBA system.
(b) Insufficient computer space/hard disk memory that caused the online SPPBS
system to be unstable and hang frequently. Teachers have to wake up in early
morning to key in the data to avoid the internet traffic congestion. Furthermore,
the teachers also complained that the online system was not flexible enough
as the teachers need to key in all the data before they can save the data file. If
the internet line was disconnected half way, then the teachers would have to
key in the data all over again. This is stressful and time-consuming. Indeed,
the nightmarish problems of using the online system have resulted in teachers
spending more time on paperwork instead of class preparation which, in turn,
affecting the effectiveness of their teaching.
(c) Big class size and high student–teacher ratio also increase the teachers’ work
load as teachers have to key in online each student’s performance every day.
For a teacher who teaches three classes of 40 students could mean 120 data or
evidence to enter every day. In fact, this similar issue was voiced out by the
Chairman of the Society of the Secondary Chinese school headmaster, Mr. Wun
Wen Bao (during an interview by a Chinese newspaper reporter, Liew Ching on
20 February 2014 in Kwang Ming Daily) that one of his teachers had to use a
trolley to carry home all the student files so as to key in the data after school
hours. Mr. Wun also mentioned that the stressful condition has also resulted that
more and more teachers opted for earlier retirement or resign from teaching.

10.11 Conclusion and Implications

In this chapter, we shared the implementation of the latest reform in Malaysian

education, namely the School-Based Assessment (SBA). As with any new policy
or innovation, there were a lot of complaints from the teachers in this initial stage.
Through a small-scale survey study of 150 primary mathematics teachers, four main
issues were identified: (a) low level of understanding of SBA by the teachers; (b)
development of the SBA instrument; (c) problems faced in preparing SBA files, and
(d) the use of online School-Based Assessment Management System. These four
issues were coherent with the main issues voiced through the mass media, mainly
incoherent information from the top authorities to the school administrators and
teachers; the extra work load for teachers to prepare the individual SBA files; and
the insufficient computer space/hard disk memory of the online server system.
10 Implementation of School-Based Assessment (SBA) in Malaysian … 203

Therefore, it is high time for the ministry to take up proper measures to resolve
these issues the soonest possible time. Three main implications and suggestions from
the small empirical study and the voices through the mass media are as follows:
(a) Review and upgrade the online operating system so that it becomes more user-
friendly, for example, the system should provide the flexibility for the teachers
to save their data at any time and then continue at any time they want.
(b) Simplify the process of developing the individual student assessment form. The
form may not need to repeat what have been included in the online SPPBS or
vice versa.
(c) Provide teachers with extra help for clerical work such as employing school
clerks to handle the paper work. This might reduce teachers’ workload and
consequently giving them more time for preparing their lessons, and hence
better teacher efficiency.
(d) For long-term planning, the MOE should strive to maintain a class size of less
than 20 students as well as a low student–teacher ratio so that teachers will have
more time to pay attention to individual student progress of learning.
In sum, the issues and problems that arise also reflected that the MOE has not made
sufficient preparation and planning and possible expectation/contingent planning
before the implementation of the SBA system. In many countries, the piloting of any
curriculum change may take at least five years, from the initial planning till the tryout
and evaluation. The ad hoc attitudes and lack of serious consideration of all factors
before implementing any new policy or system again reflect the weakness of the
Malaysian education system. To ensure that our young generation will be provided
with the best education system, it is appropriate for the MOE to make curriculum
changes constantly, but more important will be to ensure any new policy or innovative
move must be sufficiently tried out and workable before it is launched nationwide.
A good system should free the teachers with more time for teaching and learning
matter, rather than overloading them with paper work. If teachers are happy, surely
their students will be happier.

10.11.1 Latest Update of the Implementation of SBA (Added

on 8 March 2017)

Due to unforeseen reasons, this book was delayed in publication. We were then
requested by the editor of this book to update any changes in the SBA implementation
in Malaysia since 2014. Reviewing of the latest related documents and informal
interview with some school teachers, we were glad to observe that there were much
positive changes and development done in the implementation of SBA in Malaysian
schools. Here we summarized some significant changes:
Improvement of SBA as announced in the Examination Board circular letter 1/2014
(MOE, 2014)
204 C. S. Lim and C. M. Chew

On March 31, 2014, the Examination Board under the MOE issued a circular
1/2014 that various measures have been taken to make the SBA system much more
teacher friendly. The changes include the following:
(a) The Performance Standards Document [DSP] was replaced by The Pupils’
Learning Development Guide [PPPM] which is more flexible and helps teachers
to focus on teaching and learning as well as designing effective assessments for
students.
(b) Teachers are allowed to assess pupils’ learning progress based on their own
observation and evaluation with reference to the PPPM guide.
(c) Teachers are allowed to record the mastery level of their students at the appro-
priate time based on their ways as long as the record shows the development of
students’ learning during the process of teaching and learning. Teachers are no
longer needed to collect data and evidence of student work through completing
evidence statement that is too complex.
(d) Teachers are no longer needed to prepare pupils’ progress file (FPM), Show-
case file (SF), and transit record. Instead, teachers are allowed to record their
pupils’ learning progress informally according to the needs, creativity, and time
availability of the teachers.
(e) Teachers can now enter the data into the School-Based Assessment System
(SPPBS) offline or manually according to the time availability of the teachers.
Teachers are also allowed to print out the pupils’ learning progress report for
their own use and to inform the parents.
Clearly the replacement of PPPM has allowed much more flexibility and empow-
erment for the teachers to design their own methods of assessment, and forgo the
tedious work of completing the evidence statement and too much time spent in col-
lecting data and evidence of pupils’ work.
The waiver of entering the data online is another measure much welcomed by
the teachers. Teachers can now enter the data offline and at their own available time.
They do not have to complete the online process after school hours. Consequently
this change frees the teachers with more time to focus on their teaching and coaching
of weaker pupils.
Further Improvement of SBA as announced in the 2017 New Year message of the
Minister of Education
As announced by the present Minister of Education, Datuk Seri Mahdzir Khalid
(Mahaizura Abd Malik, 2017) in the annual New Year address for 2017, the MOE
resolved that only two application packages are compulsory to be managed by the
class teachers and academic subject teachers, namely Pupil Database Application
(APDM) and School-Based Assessment (PBS-Offline). Other application packages
that involve the school operation such as Education Management Information System
(EMIS) and Online Registration System (SPAT) will be handled by the data teacher
and examination secretary elected by the school authority. This resolution clearly
reduces the workload of the class and subject teachers and also the hassle of managing
the data online.
10 Implementation of School-Based Assessment (SBA) in Malaysian … 205

References

Kang, S. C. (2014, February 22). About 100 teachers turn up to protest against PBS system.
The Star Online. Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/02/22/Teacher-
protest-PBS/.
Kang, S. C. (2014, February 24). Idris Jusoh: Changes to implementation of PBS system. The
Star Online. Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/02/24/Idris-Jusoh-
Changes-to-implementation-of-PBS-system/.
Lembaga Peperiksaan. (2012). Panduan pengurusan pentaksiran berasaskan sekolah (PBS).
[Examination Board. (2012). School-Based Assessment (SBA) management guide.]
Retrieved from <http://web.moe.gov.my/lp/files/pbs/bahan/Buku%20Panduan%20Pengurusan%
20Pentaksiran%20Berasaskan%20Sekolah%20(PBS)%202012.pdf>.
Liew Ching. (2014, February 20). [WunWenBao: School Based
Assessment system is temporarily on hold]. Guang Ming Daily, p. A8.
Mahaizura Abd Malik. (2017). Penambahbaikan menyeluruh [Overall improvement]. Harian Metro,
posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2017, 10.47 am. Retrieved on March 6, 2017 from, <http://www.
hmetro.com.my/node/197911>.
Malaysian Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2013). Statistics of schools, pupils and teachers in
Malaysia as on 30 June 2013. Retrieved from http://smktelokkerang.blogspot.com/2013/08/
statistics_sekolah_murid_dan_guru_html.
Malaysian Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2014). Surat pekeliling lembaga peperiksaan
1/2014 [Circular Letter of the Examination Board 1/2014]. Retrieved from <httpjpn-
perak.moe.gov.myppdhilirperakattachmentsarticle757PekelilingPBSBil%201.2014_penambahb
aikanPBS_31Mac2014.pdf>.
Naimah, I. (2011, November). School-Based Assessment as transformation in educational assess-
ment. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Measurement and Evaluation
in Education, Penang. Retrieved from http://web.moe.gov.my/lp/files/penerbitan/ppt/ICMEE-
KEYNOTE-LP.pdf.
Thilakavathy, R. (2013). Masalah-masalah yang dihadapi oleh guru-guru matematik kurikulum
standard sekolah rendah (KSSR) dalam Pelaksanaan pentaksiran berasaskan sekolah (PBS)
[Problems faced by Primary Mathematics Curriculum Standard teachers in implementing School
Based Assessment]. Unpublished Master in Education project report, Universiti Sains Malaysia,
Penang.

Chap Sam Lim gained her Ph.D. degree from Exeter University (UK) in 1999 with a thesis on
the public images of mathematics. She was a Professor of Mathematics Education at the Universiti
Sains Malaysia (USM), Penang, Malaysia. She published numerous research articles, focusing on
cross-cultural study, public images of mathematics, teaching mathematics in a second language,
and Lesson Study as a professional development for mathematics teachers in both international
and national journals. She co-edited and published the first book on Lesson study in Malaysia,
entitled “Innovative use of GSP through Lesson Study collaboration”.

Cheng Meng Chew is an Associate Professor and the Chair of Master of Arts (Education) Mixed
Mode programme at the School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia. He was a class-
room teacher and obtained a Ph.D. (Mathematics Education) at the University of Malaya. He con-
tinues to do research in Mathematics Education and has many publications in both national and
international refereed journals, conference proceedings and books in Mathematics Education.
Chapter 11
Prospects and Challenges
in Implementing a New Mathematics
Curriculum in the Philippines

Debbie Marie B. Verzosa and Catherine P. Vistro-Yu

Abstract The Philippine Department of Education recently introduced a major

revamp in the curriculum, providing for an additional two years in basic educa-
tion. Three provisions of this new program directly relate to mathematics education.
First was the shift of language of instruction in early primary education from English
to the mother tongue. Second was the development of a new mathematics curricu-
lum that places critical thinking and problem solving as the goal of mathematics
education. Third was the extended opportunities for specialization in non-academic
tracks. In this chapter, we draw upon studies in the Philippines to examine the issues
and concerns that need to be addressed to derive the intended outcomes of the new
curriculum. We first provide an overview of curricular changes in the Philippines.
Next, we discuss the prospects and warrants of the curricular changes, given that
the use of English to teach mathematics has been fraught with coping strategies, and
that the relevance of school mathematics has repeatedly been questioned. Finally, we
argue that achieving the intended goals is not simple, particularly in resource-poor
classrooms where mathematical learning is often viewed as the ability to imitate
procedures set forth by the teacher or text. In a developing country like the Philip-
pines, there is a particular need to acknowledge the constraints within the working
environment where reforms will take place. A curriculum that offers some prospects
for improving mathematics education can only succeed if it follows through to the
most crucial stage—that of providing sustained and practical guidance for supporting
implementation and managing constraints.

D. M. B. Verzosa
University of Southern Mindanao, Kabacan, Philippines
C. P. Vistro-Yu (B)
Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, Philippines
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 207

C. P. Vistro-Yu and T. L. Toh (eds.), School Mathematics Curricula,
Mathematics Education – An Asian Perspective,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6312-2_11
208 D. M. B. Verzosa and C. P. Vistro-Yu

11.1 Introduction

Many countries in East and Southeast Asia are in the midst of managing efforts
brought about by changes in their school mathematics curricula. The Philippines is
no exception. In the ten years from 2002 to 2011, it has experienced three major
curricular changes, namely the 2002 Basic Education Curriculum (BEC), the 2010
Philippine Secondary Curriculum and the 2011 K to 12 program. To set the stage for
understanding the ensuing discussion, this chapter first provides a brief overview of
these three reform efforts.

11.2 Philippine Education Reform: An Overview

11.2.1 The 2002 Basic Education Curriculum (BEC)

The 2002 BEC was implemented on the basis of recommendations from the Philip-
pine Commission on Educational Reform (PCER). One major change was the restruc-
turing of the curriculum into fewer but integrated learning areas: Filipino, English,
Science, Mathematics, and Makabayan (literally, “nationalism,” this learning area
includes social studies, art, health, among others). Values education, previously a sep-
arate subject, is integrated in all subjects, including mathematics. A primary focus of
the BEC was to “cure the inability of students who cannot read with comprehension
at Grade 3 and worse, at Grade 6” (Department of Education [DepEd] Order 25 s.
2002). It was also through the BEC that high school mathematics shifted from a
spiral system to a discipline-based model, where only Elementary Algebra is taught
in first year, Intermediate Algebra in second year, and Geometry in third year.

11.2.2 The 2010 Philippine Secondary Curriculum

The Philippine Secondary Curriculum focuses on teaching and learning for under-
standing by design, or UbD (DepEd Memorandum 76 s. 2010). The UbD conceptual
framework, developed by Wiggins and McTighe (2005), requires teachers to orga-
nize their lessons starting with the end in mind. Learning is assessed by observing a
student’s performance in authentic situations. Teachers are expected to design activi-
ties that can realize these learning objectives. Despite UbD’s well-intentioned goals,
its implementation in the Philippines has been fraught with much misunderstand-
ing, leading its developers to respond to these issues (McTighe & Wiggins, 2012).
Most of these misunderstandings are exaggerated interpretations of UbD principles.
For example, some writers of mathematics lessons thought that all six tenets of
understanding identified in the UbD framework need to be used in all classroom
assessments. Some teachers were also told that concepts cannot be directly taught
11 Prospects and Challenges in Implementing a New Mathematics … 209

and should arise from students’ explorations. There was also a notion that “trans-
fer” meant connections to other topics or to real life. Perhaps, Lee-Chua’s (2011,
October 30) account best describes how a distorted understanding of curriculum has
undesirable effects in the classroom.
Students supposedly should apply their knowledge “authentically” by “posing situations in
real life involving special products and analyze them” (how realistic is this?); show self-
knowledge by being “receptive” in “assessing how to give the best representation to a situ-
ation involving special products” (huh?); show empathy by being “open” in “describing the
difficulties one can experience without knowing the rules for special products.” (par. 8)

11.2.3 The K to 12 Program

In 2011, the DepEd has embarked on the K to 12 program, “arguably the most
comprehensive basic education reform initiative ever done in the country since the
establishment of the public education system more than a century ago” (Message
from the DepEd 2012; SEAMEO INNOTECH, 2012). Some significant changes
include (a) the expansion of the basic education cycle from 10 to 12 years, (b) the
use of Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education in Grades 1–3, and (c) the
provision of opportunities for academic, technical-vocational, or entrepreneurship
specializations starting Grade 9. Program implementation is staggered: the program
was rolled out in Grade 1 and Grade 7 classrooms in 2012, in Grade 2 and Grade 8
in 2013, and so on, until all students have the same curriculum by 2017.
A particular area of concern in this chapter is the new Mathematics curriculum
which reverts from the discipline-based model to the pre-BEC spiral approach. The
addition of Grades 11 and 12 also provides opportunities for learning advanced
mathematics topics in line with their chosen specialization. One intention is to learn
some topics (e.g., precalculus, calculus, statistics) previously included in university
courses during Grades 11 and 12. Instruction will be guided by the Mathematics Cur-
riculum Framework informed by DOST-SEI and MATHTED (2011; see Fig. 11.1).
This framework places critical thinking and problem solving as the goals of math-
ematics education. It is comprised of five content strands: (a) Number and Number
Sense, (b) Geometry, (c) Patterns and Algebra, (d) Measurement, and (e) Statistics
and Probability. The specific skills to be developed are: (a) Knowing and Under-
standing, (b) Estimating, Computing, and Solving, (c) Visualizing and Modeling,
(d) Representing and Communicating, (e) Conjecturing, Reasoning, Proving, and
Decision-making, and (f) Applying and connecting.
The K to 12 program also introduced a revision to the national assessment system.
In this new system, there are four (rather than three) stages of assessment which
will be carried out at the end of Grade 3, Grade 6, Grade 10, and Grade 12. The
format of assessment shifts from the traditional pen-and-paper test to a combined
traditional and authentic assessment. Authentic assessment was not fully defined in
the curriculum document (SEAMEO INNOTECH, 2012).
210 D. M. B. Verzosa and C. P. Vistro-Yu

Fig. 11.1 Philippine Mathematics Curriculum Framework, 2011

This overview of the recent curriculum changes in the Philippines demonstrates

two things. First, major curriculum change occurs very rapidly, despite Nebres’
(1988, 2006) repeated pleas to begin reform from the classroom, following an evolu-
tionary rather than revolutionary approach. Second, curricular reform in the Philip-
pines has a dismal reputation for not delivering its desired outcomes. Interpretation
of educational policy tends to be distorted as training is cascaded from the policy
makers to classroom teachers. Hence, there is an immediate need to build strong
capacity for ensuring that the intended goals of the current K to 12 program, and
those of future reform efforts, will be implemented in actual classrooms.
The rest of the chapter will focus on three of the many major changes installed by
the 2011 K to 12 curriculum identified earlier: (1) the use of the mother tongue in the
early primary years, (2) the central mathematical goals of developing critical think-
ing and problem solving, and (3) career pathways. First, we discuss the prospects
and challenges of implementing the K to 12 curriculum by describing how these
changes address some limitations of the old curriculum. Next we consider barriers
11 Prospects and Challenges in Implementing a New Mathematics … 211

to implementation so that the new curriculum can follow through to its most cru-
cial stage, namely providing practical support to classroom teachers and learners.
Arguments are drawn from the researchers’ own data as well as from the relevant
scholarly literature.

11.3 Prospects of the New Curriculum

11.3.1 Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education

(MTB-MLE)

In this section, we discuss the rationale behind the shift to MTB-MLE, focusing
mostly on the transition from the medium of instruction in mathematics immediately
prior to the K to 12 program (for a comprehensive history, see Bernardo, 2008). Until
this time, the Bilingual Education Policy of 1987, with some slight revisions, was
still pretty much in place. While some subjects are taught in Filipino (Tagalog), the
language of instruction for mathematics is English. Philippine languages other than
Filipino may be used as “auxiliary languages” in the initial years of schooling.
The language policy was clarified by Executive Order 210, in 2003, where English
is to be used for teaching mathematics, starting at least Grade 3. The delay in the use
of English was intended to prepare some time for young learners, especially those
from non-English speaking environments, to handle the demands of learning content
in English. In reality, though, there is some resistance to flexibility in language use.
Teachers have reported being reprimanded for using Filipino or the vernacular during
mathematics classes, and students themselves are penalized for doing so (Borlongan,
2009). Additionally, because mathematics textbooks and assessments are in English
even in Grades 1 and 2, the benefits of mathematics instruction in the vernacular are
limited.
The use of English in mathematics has long been blamed for poor mathemat-
ics performance. This statement is hardly surprising, given that many Filipinos are
not proficient in English. Many university students, who have already undergone at
least 10 years of education in English, still have not acquired the English learning
competencies expected of a high school graduate (Guzman et al., cited by Nolasco,
2008). Numerous studies have also shown how Filipino students perform better in
tests written in their first language as compared to the same tests in English (Bautista,
Mitchelmore, & Mulligan, 2009; Bernardo, 1999).
Qualitative studies of mathematics learning in English also provide a strong case
against using English as the language of instruction in mathematics. For example, the
difficulties Filipino children encountered when solving mathematical word problems
in English were more pronounced than those commonly reported in the literature,
which tends to relate to difficulties with academic rather than conversational language
(Fillmore, 2007). By contrast, it was common for children who had just completed
Grade 3 not to understand the statement, “Alvin had 3 coins” (Verzosa & Mulligan,
212 D. M. B. Verzosa and C. P. Vistro-Yu

2013). In this context, it is highly unlikely that these children can solve even simple
additive word problems in English. The fact that children who cannot understand
simple statements such as “Alvin had 3 coins” are obligated to learn mathematics in
English says much about how their school experience must be too far removed from
their daily lives. These descriptive accounts are as vital as the results of quantitative
studies in debates about the language of instruction. These accounts also point to
“a large gap between what teaching in English requires and what is possible in the
classroom” (Posel & Casale, 2011, p. 445). As Bernardo (2008) writes,
The cognitive disadvantages brought about by using English in instruction among students
with near-zero English language proficiency and who live in non-English speaking envi-
ronments converge with the oppressive and marginalizing effect of English on the lives of
the poor. The overwhelming majority of Filipino children find their limited English a major
stumbling block in their efforts to learn in the various domains of knowledge. (p. 36)

The MTB-MLE framework seeks to address the problems of learning academic

content in English. Due to the logistical difficulties of providing education in each
of the 175 Philippine languages (Lewis, 2009), this framework allows schools to
choose from among 12 major languages as language of instruction for all learning
areas in Grades 1–3. During this time, English and Filipino are taught as separate
subjects. There is also a provision for the gradual introduction of English and Filipino
as languages of instruction appropriate to the needs of the learners from Grades 4 to
6. In its broadest sense, MTB-MLE is more than simply changing the language of
instruction. There is the expectation that it can create conditions for involving local
communities to produce culturally relevant learning materials and teaching aids.
The “most compelling L1-based educational program so far” (Nolasco, 2008,
p. 8) is the Lubuagan Kalinga program implemented by the Summer Institute of
Linguistics Philippines, the DepEd, and the local community of Lubuagan, in the
northern part of the Philippines (Walter & Dekker, 2011). In this empirical study
of first- to third-grade students, the control group learned content in either Filipino
or English (as stipulated by the Bilingual Education Policy) while the experimental
group learned content areas in their local language (Lilubuagen), and they learned
Filipino and English as separate subjects. Further, teachers of the experimental group
integrated cultural content such as oral literature, local history, local arts, craft and
music in their curriculum. Results show that the experimental group consistently
outperformed the control groups in all learning areas. Interestingly, the experimental
group performed better in a test knowledge of English despite having less instruction
time in English. This dispels the notion that learning content areas in a local language
will compromise the acquisition of a second or third language. It should be noted that
Lilubuagen is not among the official 12 languages offered by the MTB-MLE frame-
work. Thus, the Lubuagan program illustrates the promising benefits of partnerships
and community engagement in carrying out MTB-MLE principles.
Within this context, it is clear that the MTB-MLE framework aligns with empirical
research as well as common sense. Indeed, how can a child learn academic content
presented in a language that is barely understood? It was only after several decades
of multiple studies that language use in education is finally considered (Walter &
Dekker, 2011).
11 Prospects and Challenges in Implementing a New Mathematics … 213

11.3.2 The Twin Goals of Mathematics Education

The Mathematics Curriculum Framework in the K to 12 program identifies Critical

Thinking and Problem Solving as central goals, and the five interrelated aspects are
content, skills and processes, values and attitudes, mathematical tools, and context.
Citing the DepEd Curriculum Guide (2012), it adopts a definition of critical thinking
presented by Scriven and Paul (1987). They defined critical thinking as the “in-
tellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying,
analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated
by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to
belief and action.” Meanwhile, based on Polya (1962), problem solving is defined as
finding ways to hurdle initial difficulties to solve problems where a successful strat-
egy is not yet known. The DepEd curriculum guide (2012) further states that these
two goals are “to be achieved with an organized and rigorous curriculum content,
a well-defined set of high-level skills and processes, desirable values and attitudes,
and appropriate tools, recognizing as well the different contexts of Filipino learners”
(p. 2). Clearly, such goals align with the fundamental idea that mathematical com-
petence involves more than being able to compute and perform algorithms (DOST-
SEI & MATHTED, 2011). Further, the curriculum framework explicitly identified
the following underlying principles as pedagogical bases: experiential and situated
learning, reflective learning, constructivism, discovery, and inquiry-based learning
(Fig. 11.1).
This framework is an important step in the process of K to 12 reform as it lays
the foundation for curricular change. Without it, the process of revision tends to
be incoherent, lacking in focus, and unclear (Bago, 2001). At the same time, much
work needs to be done, because mathematics lessons mainly consist of rules and
procedures without sufficient attention to concepts, contexts, and connections to real
life (van den Berg, Locaylocay, & Gallos, 2007). As an example, van den Berg (2009)
cites an example by Haan of formula-based teaching taken from a Philippine second
year calculus course (equivalent to Grade 12 in other countries). In this classroom,
the students were asked to find the slope of a line whose graph was shown to them.
The students could not give the slope, even after the researcher ascertained that they
could clearly see the axes, the scale, and two marked points on the line. When the
teacher was asked why the students could not respond, she explained that a slope
problem had never been presented that way. The teacher further believed that the
students could have applied the slope formula if they had been explicitly given two
points on the line. She also admitted being unsure how to use a graph to find the
slope of a line.
Although there are very few studies that compare how language influences class-
room discourse in Filipino mathematics classrooms, it is conceivable that this dis-
mal situation is partly a consequence of using English to teach mathematics. A
related study was done by Martin (2006) who analyzed discourse patterns in science
classrooms. She found that English and Filipino had distinct functions in the class-
room. While English was used to provide input, Filipino was used to promote shared
214 D. M. B. Verzosa and C. P. Vistro-Yu

meaning. Productive mathematical discussions often arise when students and teach-
ers use their first language, usually with a mix of English words (Gallos, 2006).
The following classroom transcript from our own research illustrates the incom-
patibility of the former language policy with the development of critical thinking and
problem solving. This classroom was observed in a Tagalog-speaking region.
Students Grade 1 Narra of San Roque Elementary School is composed of 27 boys
and 22 girls.
Teacher Ok. How many are the boys?
Students Twenty-seven.
Teacher Twenty-seven, there are 27 boys. How about the girls?
Students Twenty-two.
Teacher Ok, twenty-two. There are 22 girls. Then, can anyone tell me how many
are the pupils all in all in Grade 1 Narra? Who can answer?
Student Anong gagawin [what will we do], Teacher?
Teachers [to one pupil] Sit properly. Sit properly. [to another pupil] Write your
answer on the board. Is that correct?
Students Yes.
Teacher Ok, 27 plus 22 is equal to 49. Let us see if that is correct. Class, what is
the place value of 7 and 2? Place value?
Students Nine.
Teacher Is that a place value? Place value. Tens or one?
Students Tens.
Teacher Tens, is that correct?
Students No.
Teacher Ok, what is the place value of 7 and 2?
Students Ones.
Teacher Is that correct?
Students No.
Teacher Ok, ones, tama na ba ‘yon [is this correct now]?
Students Opo [Yes]
This transcript demonstrates a clear Initiation-Response-Evaluation (IRE) dis-
course pattern which limits opportunities for complex ways of thinking and commu-
nicating (Thoms, 2012). In this transcript, the questions restrict students to producing
one-word responses. Because of the expectation that only English can be used, class-
room discussions are often fraught with coping strategies. Teachers have little option
but to pose close-ended questions while students perform some form of trial-and-
error to guess what the teacher expects to hear. For example, in this transcript, when
the teacher asked if the answer was correct, the instinct was to say no, even when
the answer was correct. In such situations, it is highly unlikely for students to move
beyond rote learning and procedural understanding.
11 Prospects and Challenges in Implementing a New Mathematics … 215

11.3.3 Particular Departures from the BEC

The most obvious change of the K to 12 program in mathematics is the return to the
spiral approach. There are also some less obvious but relevant changes. For example,
in the older curriculum, children learned addition of whole numbers every year from
Grades 1 to 4. The only difference was that in Grade 1, they are expected to add
1- to 2-digit numbers whose sum is less than 100 and in Grade 4, they are expected
to add 6 or more digit numbers with 4 or more addends with sums through billions
(DepEd, 2003). Grade 4 students rather enjoy this lesson because they are merely
carrying out a monotonous skill they had already mastered before. By contrast, in
the K to 12 program, operations will involve fewer number of digits and will focus
more on understanding.
In the BEC, word problems primarily serve as a means to apply computational
skills. The curriculum documents are quite explicit about how children should solve
word problems (DepEd, 2003). Children should be able to state what is asked and
what are given, identify word clues, and specify the correct operation to be used. For
two-step problems, children are also asked for the “hidden question.” These stringent
requirements are evident not only in textbooks but also in assessments (see Fig. 11.2).

11.3.4 Career Pathways

The K to 12 program aims to provide technical or vocational tracks to students

who would not pursue tertiary level qualifications. In Grades 7 and 8, students

Fig. 11.2 Word problem assessments for Grade 2 students from all public schools in one city
216 D. M. B. Verzosa and C. P. Vistro-Yu

will study exploratory electives in Technology and Livelihood Education (TLE).

By Grades 9 and 10, students who choose to specialize in technical/vocational skills
or entrepreneurship can take subjects related to their chosen field. The expectation
is that after completing Grade 10, students would have attained life skills that can
qualify them into the labor force. However, students may choose to complete Grades
11 and 12 and take more subjects relevant to their chosen field of specialization. The
mathematics content of Grades 11 and 12 is determined by the student’s chosen track
(e.g., calculus for the science/engineering track and general/practical math for the
humanities track).
The career pathways program has the potential to address Nebres’ (1984) obser-
vation more than 30 years ago, regarding the lack of fit between school mathematics
and socio-cultural context. For example, he noted the failure to respond to needs of
farming communities throughout the Philippines. At the time, while farmers were
lost in the new economics of higher inputs and increased productivity, schools were
concerned with sets and set properties. Even at present, high school teachers from
the provinces report that it is difficult to motivate their students to learn mathematics
because only a small fraction intend to go on to college or university, and they do
not see any need for it outside schooling. There are also a large number of student
drop-outs. More than one out of every four children who enter Grade 1 fail to reach
Grade 6, and fewer than half complete secondary school (World Bank & Australian
Aid, 2012).
Now, with the supposed greater opportunities to pursue specializations that align
with the students’ socio-cultural context, the curriculum has the potential to address
Nebres’ (1984) long-standing challenge for school systems to provide functional
numeracy to the great number who do not finish school, and to provide mathematical
skills for the agricultural, commercial, and industrial work force.

11.4 Challenges in Implementing the New Curriculum

A curriculum is evaluated based not on its articulated outcomes but on how it is

implemented in classrooms. Unfortunately, implementation is often fraught with
problems, leading to considerable waste of time, effort, and resources (Gonzalez,
1996; Nebres, 2006). This is a serious area of concern, especially in a developing
country like the Philippines where resources are scarce and curricular reforms are
often sourced externally (Bago, 2001). We now discuss the interrelated factors that
need to be considered during this critical implementation phase.

11.4.1 Inadequate Teacher Preparation

It is widely acknowledged that the adequate training of teachers is necessary for real-
izing the goals of a reform-oriented curriculum. This is especially important because
11 Prospects and Challenges in Implementing a New Mathematics … 217

the teachers themselves had limited opportunities to learn appropriate mathematics

content in their pre-service education. Teachers reported that they were unprepared to
teach subjects that they had not taken up in college. In Basco et al.’s (2013) analysis
of data from the 2008 IEA-Teacher Education Development Study in Mathematics
(TEDS-M), they found that mathematics course offerings in teacher education insti-
tutes were mostly considered secondary school subjects elsewhere in Asia: algebra,
practical math, plane and spherical trigonometry, plane and solid geometry, prob-
ability, statistics, logic and set theory, and calculus. The same study also revealed
that the content of these courses may represent only a fraction of what is learned in
similar courses in other countries. For example, less than half of the 13 TEIs offering
Linear Algebra included “Linear Transformation” and “Basis and Dimension” in
their syllabi.
Another impetus for organizing effective in-service preparation is that teachers
rarely had opportunities to learn in an environment characterized by the theories
espoused by the new curriculum in Fig. 11.1 (e.g., discovery and inquiry-based
learning, experiential and situated learning). A report by the National Institute for
Science and Mathematics Education Development [NISMED] (2001) asserts:
Do teacher educators expose prospective teachers to approaches and methods like field
study, laboratory techniques, classroom management, the effective organization of subject
matter, instruction in the proper use of audiovisual materials, and assessment of practical
and thinking skills?…Based on observations of the way teachers teach in regular classes or
in peer teaching during inservice training, one may easily infer that many have not received
training on the above skills. (p. 152)

The teachers’ weak grasp of mathematical content has implications for mathemat-
ical pedagogical knowledge (MPK) (Goos, 2013). MPK allows teachers to explain
and “unpack” ideas to help their students learn (Ball & Bass, 2004). Studies in the
Philippines indicate that further training on developing MPK is needed (van den
Berg, 2009). As well, our own studies demonstrate that teachers may not have been
able to explain certain concepts to their students. In one such study, we asked 28 high
school teachers (mostly Grade 9 and 10) to explain why the domain of the function
f (x) = log x is (0, ∞). The majority (17) could not provide an explanation. Of the
remaining 11 teachers, 3 tried to use a graph (2 correct, 1 incorrect), and 7 simply
provided correct or incorrect paraphrases of the statement. Sample paraphrases are
“The allowed values of x in f (x) = log x must exclude negative numbers,” or “The x
values of f (x) = log x ranges from zero to positive infinity.” Although the ability to
explain mathematical concepts is just one aspect of MPK (Shulman, 1986), focused
training in developing MPK seems warranted.
With the new curriculum, teachers are also expected to teach mathematics in the
mother tongue, at least in the early years of schooling. However, even though teach-
ers can speak the mother tongue of the students (or even if they have the same mother
tongue), it does not guarantee that they can use it as an official language of instruc-
tion. Lessons from Africa (Chitera, 2011) indicate that teachers are better prepared
to teach using local languages if teachers can experience effective language practices
in their teacher preparation programs. Such a program might provide teachers oppor-
tunities to use local languages in a college mathematics course. Teachers may also
218 D. M. B. Verzosa and C. P. Vistro-Yu

be exposed to language issues and challenges that arise in mathematics classrooms,

and to strategies for teaching and assessing learners using the mother tongue. Addi-
tionally, educators may put more efforts to strengthen the process of standardization,
modernization, and intellectualization of local languages (Gonzalez, 1996).

11.4.2 Rethinking Assessment

The proposed assessment specifications of the K to 12 program may be in line

with its objectives. For example, the curriculum document (SEAMEO INNOTECH,
2012) states that its indicators include 21st century skills such as research, analyti-
cal/critical, practical, and creative thinking. Unfortunately, the curriculum document
is not clear as to how these skills can be assessed. It mainly provides a rating for
learning outcomes (e.g., 15% for knowledge, 30% for understanding). The assess-
ment format is also ambiguous. For example, because an authentic assessment is
not defined, it is not clear what is meant by a “combined traditional and authentic”
assessment. Also, the need of formative assessments is emphasized. However, for-
mative assessments are often mistaken for pre-tests composed of questions related to
topics that are just about to be learned. It is like giving students a final examination at
the start of the school year. Presumably, the objective is for students to see how much
they have improved after they answer a comparable test after they have discussed
the topics in school. Clearly, there is a need to move from the “what” to the “how.”
Designing new assessment tasks will not be an easy task. Although there is scant
information about the content of the National Achievement Test (NAT), if the review-
ers are any indication, then almost all test items involve bare number tasks (e.g., what
is 75% of 120?). All items are multiple-choice questions. Word problems are often
straightforward, such as finding the area of a rectangle given its length and width.
The same is true for the Licensure Examination Test (LET) for teachers. In the 2013
examination for prospective high school teachers, many topics in the secondary
mathematics curriculum were left out. Most items related to topics in elementary
or early high school (e.g., fractions, operations on polynomials). There were few, if
any, items on radicals, geometric properties, trigonometry. There was no item that
assessed pedagogical content knowledge even if there are ways to assess this in a
multiple-choice format (Goos, 2013).
Despite the shallow focus of the current assessments, performance is not good. In
the NAT for the school year 2011–2012, the mean performance score (MPS) for math-
ematics was 66.5% for Grade 6 and 44.4% for Fourth Year (Grade 10). In the 2013
LET, only 31.18% of 62,159 prospective elementary and 39.75% of 64,792 prospec-
tive high school teachers passed the examination. An abrupt change in assessment
may pose some problems. The design and evaluation of future assessments should
be a critical ground for research.
If critical thinking and problem solving are the identified goals of the K to 12
program, then assessments for students and prospective teachers must keep up. With
the spiral approach of the K to 12 curriculum, teachers need to be knowledgeable of
11 Prospects and Challenges in Implementing a New Mathematics … 219

a wider range of mathematical domains. If assessment continues to test the ability

to perform simple algorithms or reproduced fixed bodies of knowledge, then there
is little hope of improving teacher practice or learning outcomes.

11.4.3 Explicating the Goals and Components

of the Curriculum

The MTB-MLE framework is often misconstrued as simply translating old material

into the child’s first language. However, we argue that it is not a panacea that solves the
problem of student underperformance in mathematics. Our own studies showed that
translating problems to Filipino does not guarantee problem solving success (Verzosa
& Mulligan, 2013). As such, language difficulties can actually mask underlying
deficiencies in mathematical knowledge. The MTB-MLE framework can only work
if at least four other conditions are met: (a) a cognitively demanding curriculum,
(b) competent teachers, (c) good teaching materials, and (d) community support
(Nolasco, 2008). Indeed, promoting conceptual understanding and critical thinking in
the mathematics classroom requires much more than the use of a Philippine language
in education. For example, translating the questioning prompts in Fig. 11.2 will likely
help students answer the questions (Dofitas & Gumba, 2012), but will probably not
develop critical problem solving skills.
Because the mathematics curriculum document (DepEd, 2012) describes each of
its components in one or two sentences, its application in classrooms is also limited.
It is unrealistic to assume, for example, that a teacher can apply constructivism when
the curriculum document only states that it refers to the “theory that knowledge is
constructed when the learner is able to draw ideas from his own experiences and
connects them to new ideas that are encountered” (DepEd, 2012, p. 3). There is no
additional description of how constructivist classrooms look like, or how a learner-
centered classroom is organized and managed. Explanations for the curriculum’s
other theoretical foundations are similarly terse.
If the curriculum goals or underlying principles are not clearly understood, there
is a danger that teachers may perceive they are developing certain competencies
or adhering to particular pedagogical approaches when their classroom practices
demonstrate otherwise (Perry, Vistro-Yu, Howard, Wong, & Keong, 2002). The faulty
implementation of the UbD approach mentioned earlier is one such example (Lee-
Chua, 2011; McTighe & Wiggins, 2012). Bernardo and Limjap (2012) cite several
examples: Teachers may perceive they are promoting problem solving but they are
simply doing drills and practice. They may believe they are facilitating an inquiry-
based discussion when in fact their questions are primarily intended to check whether
students can remember what had been taught. Bernardo and Limjap (2012) assert
that
many teachers seem to have some understanding of the more contemporary concepts of the
inquiry mathematics tradition, but their understanding is often superficial, vague, incomplete,
220 D. M. B. Verzosa and C. P. Vistro-Yu

and thus the impact on changing actual practice is feeble. It seems that teachers think they
are doing something progressive when they are actually doing the same old stuff with some
new trimmings. (p. 19)

The curriculum’s goals and promoted learning frameworks may be clarified by pro-
viding teachers sample activities, tasks, and lesson exemplars. For example, a teacher
may better understand inquiry-based teaching if a readily accessible document can
provide suggested discussion prompts, or even compare how the same mathematical
concept may be taught in an inquiry based and a traditional mathematics classroom.
By describing what might happen in an inquiry-based lesson, teachers can make
better sense of the goals and underlying theories of the curriculum framework.

11.4.4 Cultural Rootedness and Relevance

Both the MTB-MLE and the Mathematics curriculum framework place importance
in connecting students’ educational experiences with (a) their cultural traditions and
(b) with their current local context. These goals align with the increasing recognition
of ethnomathematics and workplace mathematics within the international mathe-
matics community. However, teachers themselves may have been exposed to mostly
Western paradigms and contrived or superficial mathematical applications during
their learning years. There should be concrete efforts to collect and compile cultur-
ally rooted and relevant learning materials. There is also the challenge of delivering
mathematics instruction compatible with the students’ chosen specialization in high
school. For example, the mathematics in schools that serve agricultural communities
need to strengthen mathematical connections to agriculture.
The development of learning materials is achieved through continued research
and partnerships with local communities. University studies on the mathematical
activity of peripheral mathematics communities have a lot to contribute to this effort
(University of the Philippines Baguio, 1996; Vistro-Yu, 2010). Filipino educators
can also investigate mathematics connections to work settings. Previous work else-
where investigates mathematical reasoning in the area of nursing (Hoyles, Noss, &
Pozzi, 2001), telecommunications (Triantafillou, 2011), and fisheries (Roth, 2005).
Mathematics and Technology/Vocational teachers may also discuss how to ensure
that the mathematics relevant to the chosen specialization is learned.
Mechanisms for compiling learning may be organized at the regional, divisional,
or even school level so that the materials reflect cultural objects or work skills that are
appropriate to the students’ immediate environment. Equally important, the distribu-
tion of and access to learning materials needs to be part of planning. The point is that it
is not enough to be aware of the importance of teaching mathematics grounded on the
socio-cultural context. Because the content of the Philippine mathematics curricu-
lum is historically influenced by Western tradition (Nebres, 1988), the development
of culturally rooted and relevant material must not be left to chance.
11 Prospects and Challenges in Implementing a New Mathematics … 221

11.4.5 Constrained Teacher Training Structure

Due to various reasons, the first two years of training (Grades 1 and 7 in 2012,
Grades 2 and 8 in 2013) had been quite rushed; training commenced even before the
learning guides had been completed. Also, the learning and teaching guides were
not available at the start of the school year, if at all. There were problems in terms of
distributing the material from the central to the regional, divisional, and school units.
Teachers often coped by borrowing materials from teachers of other schools or by
photocopying materials at their own expense. Because the learning and guides for the
third training year (2014) had been completed several months before the proposed
training, it is hoped that the same problem does not occur in the future.
Like other in-service training (INSET) programs in the Philippines, training for
the new curriculum was carried out through mass trainings using the cascade model.
Although a cascade model is not the ideal approach to teacher training (Nebres,
2006; Wedell’s, 2005) work in China suggests that a cascade model may work under
well-planned circumstances. First, there should be extended training workshops even
beyond the curriculum’s first year of implementation. The uptake of INSET-promoted
practices is not realistic after just one week of training. Second, planning needs to
consider not just the provision of training but the specific context in which teach-
ers work. Otherwise, teachers may find it difficult or even impossible to carry out
activities introduced during the training. These recommendations will be discussed
further in the following sections.

11.4.6 Attention to Context and Student Readiness

Teachers report that some of the promoted pedagogical strategies are not possible in
their schools because they lack the infrastructure (e.g., calculators, LCD projectors).
At times, the activities can only be done if they provide worksheets to their students
(at their own expense). However, it is the students’ low level of mathematics attain-
ment that teachers identify as a major prohibitive factor affecting their practice. One
example relates one teacher’s experience of trying to implement UbD [translated
from a mix of English and Filipino]:
Of course, it is ideal to apply it in school. I remember one in-service training in our division,
we were asked to create a lesson plan. Based on the UbD approach. From first to fourth
grading. Something that can be applied to the students. It’s so difficult when you’re in the
lower section. Even though you made the activity, and you’ll end up answering it yourself.
You’ll do the exploration for the students.

This situation is not unique to the Philippines, and it is an issue in many devel-
oping countries. For example, Bansilal (2011) describes a case study of one teacher
who attempted to “channel her learners’ thinking…towards the destination she was
heading for. When that did not happen she changed her questions by asking them
simpler questions which she also answered” (p. 99).
222 D. M. B. Verzosa and C. P. Vistro-Yu

Teachers further report that many of their students had not acquired the competen-
cies required to achieve the demands of the curriculum. For example, it was common
for Grade 10 students (who are expected to learn advanced algebra) to be unable to
perform operations on fractions and integers. As one teacher opined, “Ang problema
kasi ng curriculum development sa high school, assumed na mastered ang elemen-
tary. [The problem in curriculum development in high school is the assumption that
elementary concepts had been mastered.]” Another teacher held one hand high and
another low to describe the gap between the required competencies and the level
of students. There is also the added pressure of compliance. “Mapapagalitan kung
hindi tapos ang competency, kahit hindi mastered, basta lang maituro. [We’ll be rep-
rimanded for not finishing the competency. Even if it’s not mastered, the important
thing is that it was taught.]”
The problem of low mathematical background may be a consequence of the pres-
sure to reach unrealistic goals within a short time frame. For example, to achieve
Education for All, teachers are prevented from giving students a failing grade, pre-
sumably to improve school statistics. They may even be summoned by the principal
or Division supervisor when they give failing marks. In short, their teaching abilities
are questioned and they are often blamed for student failure. Teachers are officially
encouraged to help students learn, but in reality, they are entrenched in a culture
of “mass promotion” and “fake achievement.” This situation opens up a cycle of
problems when teachers themselves are challenged to teach mathematics to students
who had not been adequately prepared to learn the expected competencies.
The foregoing reality cautions us to adopt a realistic stance in terms of achieving
the goals of mathematics education by considering what is feasible in the classroom.
One teacher argued, “Yung promotes critical thinking sa mga bata, e yung elementary,
subo lang natin lahat-lahat, tapos mag-expect pa ‘yung DepEd na magturo tayo ng
critical thinking sa mga bata na ano yan siya, instant, ganun? [About critical thinking
for students, in elementary, we just spoonfeed them then now DepEd expects us to
teach critical thinking as if it can be achieved instantly]” He continues, “Dapat may
palitan sa sistema natin, hindi naman parating kami yung sisisihin. [There should
be change in the system, we shouldn’t always be blamed.]” Teachers’ experiences
of curriculum changes should influence how goals may be (gradually) achieved in
actual classrooms.

11.5 Concluding Remarks

This chapter described how the new mathematics curriculum within the country’s K
to 12 program is designed to address many of the educational challenges observed
over the previous years. The underlying theories resound with local and interna-
tional research on language and mathematics. However, if there is one point to be
emphasized in this chapter, it is that curriculum development does not end with
program design. It should follow through to the most crucial stage—that of provid-
ing practical guidance for successful implementation. It cannot simply enumerate
11 Prospects and Challenges in Implementing a New Mathematics … 223

learning theories that must organize teaching. Concrete suggestions in the form of
activities or lesson exemplars need to be integrated within well-planned professional
development programs.
Additionally, curriculum planning cannot ignore the difficulty of implementing
progressive policies under challenging and unprepared environments. Teachers can-
not immediately promote learning-centered approaches, and students cannot sud-
denly achieve critical thinking if their previous experiences do not adhere to these
goals. At the risk of promoting “fake achievement,” we must recognize that change
is an evolutionary process that has to focus on the learner and the teachers rather than
on the intended content and process (Nebres, 2006). This chapter pointed out what
might happen if there is a lack of fit between promoted practices and the working
environment, supporting the claim that in poorly resourced schools, the classroom
environment largely determines the teaching practices that are eventually utilized
(Johnson, Hodges, & Monk, 2000).
The challenges are indeed many, and the lofty goals of the new curriculum will
not likely be realized within the first few years. If so, the solution is not to create
another round of major curricular changes (or as Nebres (2006) puts it, a flash flood)
but to first find ways of seeing this program measure through. The solution is not to
find that holy grail of curriculum reform, but to undergo a long-term and systematic
process that begins from the classroom and the implemented curriculum.

Acknowledgements Thanks to Macquarie University and Ateneo de Manila University (LS Schol-
arly Work Grant) for support during various stages of collecting the data presented in this chapter.

References

Bago, A. L. (2001). Curriculum development; The Philippine experience. Manila, Philippines: De

La Salle University Press.
Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2004). Knowing mathematics for teaching. In R. Strasser, G. Brandell,
B. Grevholm, O. Helenius (Eds.), Educating for the Future: Proceedings of an International
Symposium on Mathematics Teacher Education (pp. 159–178). Sweden: The Royal Swedish
Academy of Sciences.
Bansilal, S. (2011). Assessment reform in South Africa: Opening up or closing spaces for teachers?
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 78, 91–107.
Basco, L. V., Dimaculangan, F. A., Gomez, B. G., Nool, N. R., Torino, I., Fortes, E., & Villena-Diaz,
R. (2013). Mathematics curriculum analysis of selected TEIs in the Philippines. Paper presented
at the 9th Biennial Conference of the Philippine Council of Mathematics Teacher Educators,
Bacolod City, Philippines.
Bautista, D., Mitchelmore, M., & Mulligan, J. T. [P1]. (2009). Factors influencing Filipino children’s
solutions to addition and subtraction word problems. Educational Psychology, 29, 729–745.
Bernardo, A. B. I. (1999). Overcoming obstacles to understanding and solving word problems in
mathematics. Educational Psychology, 19, 149–163.
Bernardo, A. B. I. (2008). English in Philippine education: Solution or problem? In M. L. S. Bautista
& K. Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp. 29–48). Hong
Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
224 D. M. B. Verzosa and C. P. Vistro-Yu

Bernardo, A. B. I., & Limjap, A. (2012). Investigating the influence of teachers’ pedagogical beliefs
and reported practices on student achievement in basic mathematics. Paper presented at the 12th
International Congress on Mathematical Education, Seoul, Korea. Retrieved December 30, 2013,
from www.icme12.org/upload/submission/1975_F.pdf.
Borlongan, A. M. (2009). Tagalog-English code-switching in English language classes: Frequency
and forms. TESOL Journal, 1, 28–42.
Chitera, N. (2011). Language of learning and teaching in schools: An issue for research in mathe-
matics teacher education? Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14, 231–246.
Department of Education [DepEd]. (2002). Implementation of the 2002 Basic Education Curriculum
(Order 25). Retrieved from http://www.deped.gov.ph/2002/06/17/do-25-s-2002-inplementation-
of-the-2002-basic-education-curriculum/.
Department of Education [DepEd]. (2003). Basic education curriculum (Philippine learning com-
petencies): Mathematics. Pasig City, Philippines: Department of Education.
Department of Education [DepEd]. (2010). Policy guidelines on the implementation of the 2010
Secondary Education Curriculum (SEC) (Order 76). Retrieved from http://www.deped.gov.
ph/2010/06/03/do-76-s-2010-policy-guidelines-on-the-implementation-of-the-2010-secondary-
education-curriculum-sec/.
Department of Education [DepEd]. (2012). K to 12 curriculum guide: Mathematics. Pasig City:
Department of Education. Retrieved December 30, 2013, from http://www.gov.ph/downloads/
2012/01jan/MATHEMATICS-K-12-Curriculum-Guide.pdf.
Dofitas, C. V., & Gumba, L. L. (2012). What’s in a word problem? Suggestions for the increased
transparency in mathematics word problems. Presented at the 2nd MTBMLE Conference, Iloilo
City, Philippines.
Fillmore, L. W. (2007). English learners and mathematics learning: Language issues to consider.
In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Assessing mathematical proficiency (pp. 333–344). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Gallos, F. (2006). Students’ private discourse in a Philippine classroom: An alternative to teacher’s
classroom discourse? In D. Clarke, C. Keitel, Y, Shimizu (Eds.) Mathematics classrooms in twelve
countries: The insider’s perspective. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Gonzalez, A. (1996). Using two/three languages in Philippine classrooms: Implications for policies,
strategies, and practices. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 17, 210–219.
Goos, M. (2013). Knowledge for teaching secondary school mathematics: What counts? Interna-
tional Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 44, 972–983.
Hoyles, C., Noss, R., & Pozzi, S. (2001). Proportinal reasoning in nursing practice. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 4–27.
Johnson, S., Hodges, M., & Monk, M. (2000). Teacher development and change in South Africa:
A critique of the appropriateness of transfer of northern/western practice. Compare: A Journal
of Comparative and International Education, 30, 179–192.
Lee-Chua, Q. (2011, October 30). Misunderstanding UBD. Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved
December 30, 2013, from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/85451/misunderstanding-ubd.
Lewis, M. P. (Ed.). (2009). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (16th ed.). Dallas, Texas: SIL
International. Retrieved December 30, 2013, from http://www.ethnologue.com/16.
Martin, I. P. (2006). Language in Philippine education: Enfeebling or enabling? Asian Englishes
Journal, 9(2), 48–67.
McTighe J., & Wiggins, G. (2012). Understanding by Design® framework in the Philippines.
Retrieved November 8, 2013, from http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/siteASCD/publications/
UbD_WhitePaper312.pdf.
National Institute for Science and Mathematics Education Development (NISMED) & Foundation
for the Advancement of Science Education, Inc (Agham, Ink.). (2001). One hundred years of
science and mathematics education in the Philippines. Quezon City, Philippines: NISMED &
Agham, Ink.
11 Prospects and Challenges in Implementing a New Mathematics … 225

Nebres, B. (1984). The problem of universal mathematics education in developing countries. In P.

Damerow, M. E. Dunkley, B. F. Nebres, & B. Werry (Eds.), Mathematics for all. Paris, France:
UNESCO.
Nebres, B. (1988). School mathematics in the 1990’s: Recent trends and the challenge to developing
countries (Plenary Address). In A. Hirst & K. Hirst (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International
Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 11–28). Budapest, Hungary: ICME.
Nebres, B. (2006). Philippine perspective on the ICMI comparative study. 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. 277–284). New York: Springer.
Nolasco, R. M. (2008). The prospects of multilingual education and literacy in the Philippines.
Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Language Development, Language
Revitalization, and Multilingual Education in Ethnolinguistic Communities, Bangkok. Retrieved
December 30, 2013, from http://www.seameo.org/_ld2008/doucments/Presentation_document/
NolascoTHE_PROSPECTS_OF_MULTILINGUAL_EDUCATION.pdf.
Perry, B., Vistro-Yu, C., Howard, P., Wong, N.-Y., & Keong, F. H. (2002). Beliefs of primary
teachers about mathematics and its teaching and learning: Views from Singapore, Philippines,
Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Australia. In B. Barton, K. C. Irwin, M. Pfannkuch,
& M. O. J. Thomas (Eds.) Mathematics education in the South Pacific (Proceedings of the 25th
Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Auckland,
pp. 551–558). Sydney: MERGA.
Polya, G. (1962). Mathematical discovery: On understanding, learning and teaching problem solv-
ing: Volume I. New York: Wiley.
Posel, D., & Casale, D. (2011). Language proficiency and language policy in South Africa: Findings
from new data. International Journal of Educational Development, 31, 419–426.
Roth, W. M. (2005). Mathematical inscriptions and the reflexive elaboration of understanding: An
ethnography of graphing and numeracy in a fish hatchery. Mathematical Thinking and Learning,
7(2), 75–110.
Science Education Institute of the Department of Science and Technology [DOST-SEI] & Philippine
Council of Mathematics Teacher Educators [MATHTED]. (2011). Mathematics framework for
Philippine basic education. Quezon City: DOST-SEI & MATHTED.
Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (1987). Defining critical thinking. Retrieved December 30, 2013, from
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766.
Shulman, L. (1986). Knowledge growth in teaching: Those who understand. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization [SEAMEO] Regional Center for Educational
Innovation and Technology [INNOTECH]. (2012). K to 12 toolkit. Quezon City, Philippines:
SEAMEO INNOTECH.
Thoms, J. J. (2012). Classroom discourse in foreign language classrooms: A review of the literature.
Foreign Language Annals, 45(S1), S8–S27.
Triantafillou, C. (2011). Mathematical literacy skills in a workplace context: The case of reading
and interpreting data. In B. Ubuz (Ed.) Proceedings of the 35th Conference of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 265–272). Ankara, Turkey,
PME.
University of the Philippines Baguio. (1996). The algebra of weaving patterns, gong music, and
kinship system of the Kankana-ey of Mountain Province. Pasig City: DepEd and UP.
van den Berg. E. (2009). A case study of pedagogical content knowledge and faculty develop-
ment in the Philippines. Retrieved from the Digital Academic Repository of Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam.
van den Berg, E., Locaylocay, J. R., & Gallos, M. R. (2007). Ten best practices in a science and
mathematics teacher education program in the Philippines. In M. Nagao, J. M. Rogan, & M.
C. Magno (Eds.), Mathematics and science education in developing countries: Issues, experi-
ences, and cooperation prospects (pp. 231–251). Quezon City, Philippines: The University of the
Philippines Press.
226 D. M. B. Verzosa and C. P. Vistro-Yu

Verzosa, D., & Mulligan, J. (2013). Learning to solve addition and subtraction word problems in
English as an imported language. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82, 223–244.
Vistro-Yu, C. (2010). Ethnomathematics for capacity building in mathematics education. Intersec-
tion, 11, 2–15.
Walter, S. L., & Dekker, D. E. (2011). Mother tongue instruction in Lubuagan: A case study from
the Philippines. International Review of Education, 57, 667–683.
Wedell, M. (2005). Cascading training down into the classroom: The need for parallel planning.
International Journal of Educational Development, 25(6), 637–651.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
World Bank & Australian Aid. (2012). Philippines: Basic education public expenditure review.
Manila: Author.

Debbie Marie B. Verzosa is faculty member of the Department of Mathematics and Statistics
at the University of Southern Mindanao, Philippines. She obtained her Ph.D. in Education from
Macquarie University, Australia. Her main fields of interest are the development of number sense
of primary school children and mathematics teacher education.

Catherine P. Vistro-Yu is Professor at the Mathematics Department, School of Science and Engi-
neering, Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines. She is Program Coordinator of their master’s
and doctoral programs in Mathematics Education. She was the ICMI Philippine representative
from 2008 to 2016 and was a member of the ICMI EC from 2013 to 2016. She now serves in
the IPC of ICME 14.
Chapter 12
Challenges in School Mathematics
Curriculum Reform in India:
Transforming Teacher Practices Through
Pedagogical Innovations

Rakhi Banerjee and Padmanabhan Seshaiyer

Abstract Over the last four decades, India has seen tremendous growth and change
in the field of education, especially mathematics education. There has been a growing
awareness in India for the need to improve student learning in a continually chang-
ing and highly demanding environment. In facing this challenge, it is essential to
understand the complexity of the educational system and the multitude of problems
it comes with. Over the years, India has made small but significant efforts in the form
of intervention at various levels in K-12 mathematics education. These efforts have
begun to indicate the direction in which we need to put in our efforts for improving
both student thinking and learning and teacher pedagogical practices. In this chapter,
we will discuss how India’s mathematics education is changing through various gov-
ernmental and non-governmental initiatives, national curriculum framework reforms
and activities to popularize mathematics. While these have been evolving, one of the
continuing challenges that have been identified in India is teacher preparation and a
good model for teacher professional development at the in-service and pre-service
levels. We will discuss how one can tackle this problem through engagement of teach-
ers in novel pedagogical practices both inside and outside of classrooms, through
creation of rich tasks and problems with varying levels of cognitive demand, through
recognition of multiple approaches to problem solving in a classroom and through
a culture of lesson study to promote a collaborative teacher network. Such innova-
tive reforms will not only enhance the mathematics education curriculum in India
but also will help prepare students with lifelong twenty-first-century skills including
collaboration, communication, critical thinking and creativity.

R. Banerjee
Azim Premji University, Bengaluru, India
P. Seshaiyer (B)
George Mason University, Fairfax, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 227

C. P. Vistro-Yu and T. L. Toh (eds.), School Mathematics Curricula,
Mathematics Education – An Asian Perspective,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6312-2_12
228 R. Banerjee and P. Seshaiyer

12.1 Introduction

India has had a rich mathematics tradition in the past. It has also enjoyed a high social
status, with intelligence of an individual often equated to his/her ability to perform
well in mathematics. There is a high hope of being able to preserve the traditions of
the past as well as to continue contributing to the creation of mathematical knowl-
edge and apply it for improving science and technology. But there is also the reality
that a large number of children do not end up learning or getting exposed to much
mathematics during the compulsory school years, and thereby, the dream and hope
are not sustained. It is some of these factors which have often led to serious thinking
about mathematics teaching and learning at the school level. So, discussion on and
recommendations about mathematics teaching and learning occupy much space in
various commission reports instituted by the government. Consequently, these dis-
courses have also influenced the curriculum reforms and textbook writing. In this
paper, we intend to discuss the issues and challenges that Indian school curriculum
faces. We will also try to speculate some ways of meeting the challenges, especially
by pointing out some directions for teacher capacity building/teacher professional
development.

12.2 Indian School Education System

School education system is quite complex in India. A large number of schools are
primary schools and at most serve till the completion of elementary education (till
grade 8). Secondary schools are not as easily accessible as primary schools are
and one may have to travel some distance in order to reach there. A large number
of schools are run by the government (state and central), which have the largest
reach to nooks and corners of the country. There are also schools run by trusts
or private bodies but supported and funded by the government. We have an ever
mushrooming low-fee charging private schools in India, now spreading in all parts
of the country serving the poor population as well as elite private schools, located
in big cities or some prized locations of the country unaided by the government. To
give a rough estimate of the number of schools and teachers in the education system
in the year 2012–13, the figures are as high as 1.4 million elementary schools and
7.4 million teachers with an average pupil–teacher ratio being 28.8 (with a large
variability, maximum being 129.4 and minimum being 4.4) (NEUPA, 2016). Given
the size, population, diversity (like, regional, demographical, cultural, linguistic,
socio-economical, religious, caste hierarchies) and political regimes in the country, it
is not hard to imagine that providing equal access to schooling and equal opportunities
for success through all these different kinds of schools to all children in the age group
of 6–14 years is a big challenge.
All schools are bound by central and/or state policies and regulations but depend-
ing on their location (e.g. state, district, village, urban, rural), government or private
12 Challenges in School Mathematics Curriculum Reform in India … 229

run and availability of resources (human, material and financial), they function in
very different ways and end up providing differential access to education. There is
a level of decentralization possible in the governance of school education system
within the country. National bodies work as guides and often have more directive
and regulatory capacities and the states implement these after some modification to
suit their purposes. This complicates further the issue of designing of curriculum and
pedagogy, across such different situations. The low-fee charging private schools are
creating another set of complications by enticing the parents and students, who have
as yet availed the services provided by the (at least partially ineffective) government
education system, promising them of better education and a better future. This further
impacts the functionality (or dysfunctionality) of the government education system.
A country which is largely poor and which sees education as a prominent source
of social mobility, gains through participation in this complex education system is
often unpredictable and many times not very successful.
Further, teachers are prepared and recruited through various means and ways.
The primary/elementary grade teachers are prepared through a two-year programme
after grade 12 while the secondary school teacher is prepared now through a two-year
programme after an undergraduate degree (this used to be a one-year programme till
last year). The primary grade teachers generally teach all subjects, and the secondary
school teachers are generally recruited by subject areas. This also means that teachers
teaching mathematics through the elementary grades are likely to have very little
expertise in the subject and may have had very little education in mathematics, also
of fairly poor quality. Teachers are recruited to the government schools after they
have passed the respective state test of eligibility and other examination that may
be deemed necessary for the particular positions; private schools design their own
formats of teacher recruitment. However, many states have recruited teachers (both
government and private) even without these prerequisite qualifications in the wake of
the demand for teachers created by Universalization of Elementary Education (UEE).
These teachers could have much lower qualifications than those prescribed by the
teacher recruitment norms, recruitments happen at the local village and community
levels and salaries are disproportionately less than regular teachers. This further puts
severe constraints on the quality of education in our schools and especially in a
subject like mathematics. The Right to Education Act (RTE), which has come into
effect in 2010, mandates compulsory and quality education for all children in the
age group 6–14 and also mandates appropriate qualification of teachers. In order to
meet these requirements of quality learning, there has to be sufficiently more quality
teachers, when there is already a huge backlog of vacancies, due to unavailability of
trained teachers.

12.3 Goals of School Mathematics: An Overview

Babu (2012) gives an account of an indigenous tradition of mathematics instruction

from some parts of the country and shows the interconnectedness of the curriculum
230 R. Banerjee and P. Seshaiyer

chosen and the pedagogy with the practical purposes the resulting learning was to
serve. Learning mathematics in these indigenous schools had a primary function in
the service of a particular occupation or society. The colonial encounter, according to
Babu (2012), attempted to remove this functional purpose of learning mathematics
and replaced it with mechanical mastery of arithmetic, in order to make individuals
numerate. In the process, the basic aim of mathematics instruction was changed.
From around the time of independence of our country, mathematics has been seen
as an important component of the curriculum, sometimes in relation to work and at
other times as a way to train the child to think, reason, analyse and articulate logically
and also as a vehicle of promoting a spirit of enquiry and building scientific temper
(GoI, 1986; NCERT, 1988; Ramanujam, 2012). In the various commission reports
established to improve education within the country, one has seen the emphasis on
mathematics as a foundation discipline for children from all sections of the society
(especially marginalized sections and girls), making it compulsory for every child to
study it till the end of grade 10. Mathematics was considered to help in the growth of
science and technology, and thereby alleviating the conditions of the poor, remove
superstitions and create a more egalitarian society (GoI, 1966, 1986). The imagination
of mathematics in many of these documents is one which is a body of knowledge
which needs to be passed on to the younger generation and needs to be connected
to practical applications in day-to-day life in order to make students understand
it. The highly contested National Curriculum Framework of the year 2000 (NCF-
2000) (NCERT, 2000), which was regarded as one infusing a particular religious
flavour into the realm of education (e.g. Kamat, 2004), has a few more objectives of
teaching mathematics other than the ones mentioned above. These are the skill of
quantification, recognizing patterns, conjecturing, proving, arguing, testing validity
of propositions, problem solving and appreciating the power of mathematics.
Given the brief description of the goals and objectives of mathematics teaching
in the curriculum and in the background of how teachers for teaching mathematics
are prepared in the country, it is not a great surprise that most students have not
learnt much mathematics in the country. It is in this backdrop that the last National
Curriculum Framework (NCF-2005) (NCERT, 2005) came into existence and argued
against the predominant ways in which mathematics teaching and learning have been
conceptualized and the sense of failure and fear that it has caused among children
for many years. It expected to revamp every aspect of the child’s education—cur-
riculum, textbooks, teaching–learning processes, classroom environment, teachers
and assessment. In the nationwide deliberations, it could build on prior experiences
of many individuals and groups who had participated in various kinds of enrichment
and intervention activities and missions like Adult Literacy Programme (Rampal,
Ramanujam and Saraswati, 1998). The NCF-2005 was a huge exercise and led to
significant changes in the way one thought about teaching and learning of mathe-
matics and one wrote textbooks for children and moved away from the static view of
the content of mathematics. The framework explicated clearly a philosophy and an
approach to teaching and learning and systematically tried to address social justice
questions. It is guided by the Constitutional values of India as a “secular, egalitarian
12 Challenges in School Mathematics Curriculum Reform in India … 231

and pluralistic society, founded on the values of social justice and equality” (NCERT,
2005). It proposed five guiding principles for curriculum development:
(i)connecting knowledge to life outside the school;
(ii)ensuring that learning shifts away from rote methods;
(iii)enriching the curriculum so that it goes beyond textbooks;
(iv) making examinations more flexible and integrating them with classroom life;
and
(v) nurturing an overriding identity informed by caring concerns within the demo-
cratic polity of the country.
The child, in this document, is considered as an active constructor of knowledge
and comes to school with a wide range of knowledge from his/her local surroundings.
In sync with this assumption, teachers are supposed to act as guides and facilitators
and not as repositories of knowledge. The particular aims of mathematics teaching
are to develop children’s abilities to mathematize, to shift away from the narrow
goals concerned with “utility” to higher aims of developing “the child’s resources to
think and reason mathematically, to pursue assumptions to their logical conclusion
and to handle abstraction. It includes a way of doing things, and the ability and the
attitude to formulate and solve problems” (NCERT, 2005, p. 42). It aimed to create an
ambitious curriculum, wanted to teach coherent and important ideas of mathematics.
The vision is stated thus (NCERT, 2005, p. 43):
• Children learn to enjoy mathematics rather than fear it.
• Children learn important mathematics.
• Mathematics is more than formulas and mechanical procedures.
• Children see mathematics as something to talk about, to communicate through, to
discuss among themselves and to work together on.
• Children pose and solve meaningful problems.
The textbooks which were written after the NCF-2005 deliberations tried to meet
the vision of the curriculum framework document and include various voices and
backgrounds of children and adults who surround them. The tone of the books is
reader friendly and has many visuals, games, activities and open-ended tasks. This
nationwide exercise had tremendous influence on state-level development of curric-
ular document and textbooks. Some such examples will be given later.

12.4 Trends in Innovations in Mathematics Curriculum

It has been almost half a century since many efforts from government and non-
governmental organizations have been taken to improve the school education. Uni-
versalization of education and education for democracy have become the new agen-
das for the country. Mathematics has been a subject with a large number of student
failures, a reason for students dropping out of school and fear and anxiety among
students. Mathematics and science, which have played the role of gatekeepers for
232 R. Banerjee and P. Seshaiyer

accessing higher education, have for many years aroused interest among several
intellectuals to make an effort on the ground and make a difference in children’s
attitudes to and understanding of these subjects. Though there have been many ini-
tiatives within the country in improving mathematics teaching and learning, they are
not well-documented.
Some of the earliest attempts in the way to improving teaching and learning of
mathematics were in developing alternative curricular materials. The Khushi-Khushi
series of books for teaching mathematics at the primary level developed by Eklavya,
a non-governmental organization (henceforth, NGO), based in Madhya Pradesh and
the material designed by another NGO, Digantar based in Rajasthan are two such
examples. They associated closely with local schools and teachers and the communi-
ties they intended to work with. These attempts were premised on children as active
learners and faith in their ability to think independently and create knowledge. They
took into consideration children’s background (socio-economic, language, local tra-
ditions, culture, environment, etc.) in the designing of these materials, understanding
that these factors influence learning of mathematics in specific ways and considered
these as ways to make mathematics meaningful. These initial attempts were based
on some understanding in the areas of child development, language learning and
mathematical skills and abilities of children. They relied heavily on Piagetian stages
of cognitive development and promoted constructivist and discovery-based learn-
ing, used games and activities and helped students learn from concrete experiences
or structured materials before moving to abstract concepts. However, teachers were
given adequate space to change, modify and add to the illustrative material given in
the text as per the needs of their classes and children. They paved the way for many
subsequent interventions.
Much of the curriculum development activity in the country has been guided by
these assumptions and philosophy of teaching and learning but has varied in the way
these translated into the design of textbooks and materials. We can see three distinct
trends in the designing of these interventions. One set of interventions used plenty of
games and activities to introduce concepts and ideas, to strengthen procedures and
simultaneously encouraging and motivating students to participate in them and dis-
pelling the fear and antagonism towards the subject. The thrust of these interventions
has been on the use of games and activities and less importance is given to sequenc-
ing of concepts across grade levels or ideas within a concept. They also included
student-generated strategies, giving scope to generate problems given some numeri-
cal sentences, recognition of patterns in numbers and operations. Teachers were inte-
gral to the design and development of activities and ideas in such interventions, and
thus, a large number of classrooms were available for trialling them. In the process,
these initiatives conceptualized and developed mechanisms for supporting teacher
preparation (pre- and in-service). These efforts inspired the development of alterna-
tive primary mathematics curriculum in schools, involving teachers, educationists
and scientists. A few state governments (like Kerala and Tamil Nadu) modelled
their textbook development efforts on similar lines through extensive participation
by teachers. Another set of interventions has been based on the development and
use of very structured materials in a systematic way, to gradually build new ideas
12 Challenges in School Mathematics Curriculum Reform in India … 233

and concepts. A third set of interventions is more conceptually driven, introduc-

ing the concepts gradually, using students’ prior knowledge, making connections
between different ideas, not necessarily guided by the generic Piagetian stages of
child development but more guided by domain-specific ideas of learning mathemat-
ics, deepening students’ understanding through various activities aimed at clarifying
the concept and related ideas and procedures. Besides these, many mathematicians
and scientists have been involved in creation of enrichment material for students
and teachers and popularizing mathematics for the masses. The experiences gener-
ated through these interventions have informed the vision document for mathematics
teaching and learning (NCERT, 2006) as well as the development of the textbooks.

12.5 Issues and Challenges in School Mathematics

Curriculum Reform

Scholars in the country like Rampal and Subramaniam (2012) and Khan (2015b) have
described the reform efforts in school mathematics curriculum and also expressed
concerns regarding the vision and implementation. Concerns are raised about the
under-preparedness of the system to respond to the needs of the new curriculum
framework in terms of teacher capacity and teaching–learning processes in schools
and connections across grades. Khan (2015b) also cites concerns with regard to inco-
herence in the theoretical conceptualization of the framework as well as in a deeper
sociological analysis within which hierarchies of knowledge as well as individuals
and groups are embedded. Social, economical and political structures are implicated
in translating such visions into reality.
One of the difficulties with mathematics curriculum reform within the country has
to do with insufficient theorization of issues which influence curriculum development
and teaching and learning of a subject. Research done within the country in the area
of mathematics education is inadequate for the purposes of guiding these reform
initiatives. A large number of such studies have addressed content-related questions in
the elementary grades and mostly in the psychometric framework. They do not give us
sufficient understanding of students’ processes of thinking and reasoning and often do
not engage with any theory of mathematics learning which could help us understand
why something works or fails. It is only in the recent years that some individuals
and a handful of institutions have made serious attempts to understand issues with
teaching and learning of different areas of mathematics, making apparent children’s
processes of arriving at solutions to problems in the context of the teaching–learning
context. This too is largely focused on the elementary grades and therefore is not
sufficient to guide reforms in secondary and higher secondary grades. Due to various
limitations of such research, these have not been influential enough to feed into
curriculum reform as yet.
Understanding how children learn typical content areas is not in itself enough for
curriculum reforms. Other more important ideas need to be engaged with. We first
234 R. Banerjee and P. Seshaiyer

need a good debate and analysis of the purposes of teaching mathematics in schools
and how they are connected to the diversity of the country and pulls and pushes
of different dominant groups of the population. We need to develop a deeper under-
standing of domain-specific nature of mathematics learning among children. We also
need to engage with ideas which include representations and symbols in mathemat-
ics, meaning making, language issues, reasoning, argumentation and proving, use
of technology, understanding classroom cultures, teacher education, socio-political-
economic questions and its impact on mathematics education, affect and mathematics
teaching and learning and assessment. It is these issues which impinge directly on
the framework we choose for developing a curriculum. In order to achieve this, we
need many more institutions and individuals to support in this endeavour.
In the complex and diverse Indian context, questions of meaning in mathematics,
mathematical language and symbols, an imagination of classroom culture and envi-
ronment that will support the learning of mathematics and issues of access and use
of technology are very important for thinking about quality in mathematics learn-
ing. The debate about meaningfulness of the mathematics learnt or the mathematical
activity has taken several twists and turns. Not so long ago, learning mathemat-
ics was thought to be meaningful as it provided access to prestigious professional
or academic career. All children went through a certain kind of mathematics for
ten years, which prepared them successively for the next stage, keeping the end in
mind (mathematics for professionals or mathematicians). In some time, it was found
that most children do not succeed in this endeavour and are therefore not able to
gain through their mathematics learning/teaching, but develop anxiety, fear, lack of
confidence and hopelessness. Thus, the need arose for rethinking the mathematics
curriculum. The root cause of this failure among students was identified to be the
meaninglessness of the mathematical activity in schools. The first effort to infuse
meaning, through large-scale governmental and non-governmental initiatives, was
to increase activities, games, concrete materials and word problems (signifying appli-
cation of mathematics to real world) in the mathematics classroom. Although one
found overall gains in attitude and confidence of children who participated in them,
no systematic attempts were made to collect data of students’ learning of mathemat-
ics in these situations. All the same, many felt that this mathematics too was not very
useful and the applications in terms of word problems were rather contrived. Thus,
another attempt to make mathematics meaningful came by embedding mathematics
in real-world contexts of children and thereby engaging with critical theories and
pedagogies of education (seen in the latest textbooks post NCF-2005).
In the process of taking any of these policy decisions, we need a more nuanced
understanding of what “meaning” is—what types of activities can be considered
to be meaningful, what cannot be meaningful, positioning and sequencing of these
activities, emphasis on different aspects of mathematics, etc. What role do concepts
and symbols play in this process? How does understanding of symbols progress?
What is the relation between concepts, procedures and symbols in mathematics?
What kind of classroom cultures enable children to not only make sense of the
mathematics that is a lived reality for them but also transcend it and move into the
world of mathematics, deal with the abstractions? What is the role of communication,
12 Challenges in School Mathematics Curriculum Reform in India … 235

reasoning and argumentation in the classroom? What strategies can be evolved to take
this forward and learn to communicate in the language of mathematics, for example,
writing proofs? In what ways can technology help teaching in the classroom? What is
the role of the teacher in such a classroom? What kind of knowledge and preparation
should the teacher have? What kind of assessment mechanisms will give us insights
into children’s learning? What challenges and issues arise while implementing any
of the above in the classroom? A small study by Banerjee (2015) brought forth
many of these issues as the author tried to probe children’s understanding of algebra
in the middle grades and connect it with the classroom processes and teacher’s
understanding of the content.
Thus, the process of arriving at a resolution for the idea of “meaning” in mathe-
matics is a complicated one. It immediately gets intertwined with many other things,
including questions of access and quality education. If relevance or context is given
priority over ideas to be learnt in a mathematics lesson, then we have to explore
the extent to which equitable access to mathematics learning can be provided, given
the diverse backgrounds of the students in the country. How would this impact their
later learning? What vision do we have of mathematics learners who would exit
school after grades 8, 10 or 12? Can this be different for different kinds of learners?
At what grade level can we start differentiating between students? Is it possible to
completely remove considerations of the long-term ends or directions students may
choose to take? Khan (2015a) argues that it is not possible to understand issues of
learning mathematics without a deeper analysis of the contexts of school practices
and children’s lives.

12.6 Towards New Teacher Professional Development

Models

Much of curriculum reform or any change in teaching and learning of mathemat-

ics would be difficult to actualize if we do not clearly understand what aspects of
the teachers’ personality and their academic achievements are responsible for being
able to teach effectively mathematics that is considered important for students to
learn. We have to envisage new ways of preparing teachers of mathematics and also
support them in their further learning as teachers by designing appropriate profes-
sional development programmes based on an understanding of how teachers learn
in and through their practices. Specifically, this should include programmes that
will impact long-term teacher professional development, curriculum enhancement
and sound implementation strategies that will help teachers to develop and employ
formative and summative assessments, vertically articulate across grades and collab-
orate on problem-based learning with connections between mathematics and other
disciplines. Enhancing mathematics content knowledge of teachers involves helping
them see the connections between the core areas in the curriculum through a vertically
articulated approach. This will help them to understand how to unfold specific con-
236 R. Banerjee and P. Seshaiyer

tent areas across grade levels and examine mathematical learning progressions (Suh
& Seshaiyer, 2015). It will also reinforce goals for students to become mathematical
problem solvers, communicating mathematically, reasoning mathematically, mak-
ing mathematical connections and using mathematical representations to model and
interpret practical situations. These lifelong skills are essential for students to become
proficient in communication, collaboration, critical thinking and creativity which are
the four fundamental pillars of twenty-first-century skills (Suh & Seshaiyer, 2013).
Developing such strategic competence (Suh and Seshaiyer, 2014) for teachers is an
important practice-based skill that includes the ability to formulate, represent and
solve problems in a variety of ways including numerically, mentally, symbolically,
verbally or graphically; model mathematical ideas; and demonstrate representational
fluency (Suh & Seshaiyer, 2016).
Along with teacher professional development, it is also important to help guide
principals of schools with a deeper understanding of structural leadership and instruc-
tional practice in mathematics programs, and in using research to inform practice,
enabling them to identify assets in their communities in order to make high-quality
learning accessible to all students. It is essential to prepare these school leaders
for framing the connection between the school and the teacher goals, helping them
analyse their school report cards in mathematics historically and trying to develop
school-focussed solutions that can impact student achievement and learning.

References

Babu, S. D. (2012). Indigenous traditions and the colonial encounter: A historical perspective on
Mathematics education in India. In R. Ramanujam & K. Subramaniam (Eds.), Mathematics
education in India: Status and outlook. HBCSE TIFR: Mumbai, India.
Banerjee, R. (2015). Students’ understanding of algebra and curriculum reform. In B. Sriraman,
K. H. Lee, F. Lianghuo, J. Cai, Y. Shimuzu, K. Subramaniam, & L. C. Sam (Eds.), The first
sourcebook on Asian research in Mathematics education: Korea, Singapore, China, Japan, India
and Malaysia. Berlin: Springer.
Government of India (GoI). (1966). Report of the education commission (1964–66): Education and
national development. New Delhi, India: Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource
Development.
Government of India (GoI). (1986). National policy on education 1986 (with modifications under-
taken in 1992). New Delhi, India: Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Devel-
opment.
Kamat, S. (2004). Postcolonial aporias, or what does fundamentalism have to do with globalization?
The contradictory consequences of education reform in India. Comparative Education, 40(2),
267–287 [Special issue 28: Postcolonialism and comparative education].
Khan, F. A. (2015a). Mathematics and its discontents. How well does Mathematics pedagogy serve
the children of the poor? (pp. 1–31). TRG Poverty & Education Working Paper Series. New
Delhi, India: Max Weber Stiftung.
Khan, F. A. (2015b) Evolving concerns around mathematics as a school discipline: Curricular vision,
educational policy and the national curriculum framework 2005. In B. Sriraman, K. H. Lee, F.
Lianghuo, J. Cai, Y. Shimuzu, K. Subramaniam & L. C. Sam (Eds.) The first sourcebook on
Asian research in Mathematics education: Korea, Singapore, China, Japan, India and Malaysia.
Berlin: Springer.
12 Challenges in School Mathematics Curriculum Reform in India … 237

National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). (1988). National curriculum for
elementary and secondary education: A framework. New Delhi, India: NCERT.
National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). (2000). National curricular
framework for school education. New Delhi, India: NCERT.
National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). (2005). National curricular
framework. New Delhi, India: NCERT.
National Council of Educational Research and Training. (2006). Position paper, national focus
group on teaching of Mathematics. New Delhi: NCERT.
National University of Educational Planning and Administration. (2016). Teachers in the Indian
education system: How we manage the teacher work force in India? NUEPA Research Report
Publication Series, New Delhi, India.
Ramanujam, R. (2012). Mathematics education in India—An overview. In R. Ramanujam & K. Sub-
ramaniam (Eds.), Mathematics education in India: Status and outlook. HBCSE TIFR: Mumbai,
India.
Rampal, A., & Subramanian, J. (2012). Transforming the elementary mathematics curriculum:
Issues and challenges. In R. Ramanujam & K. Subramaniam (Eds.), Mathematics education in
India: Status and outlook. HBCSE TIFR: Mumbai, India.
Rampal, A., Ramanujam, R., & Saraswati, L. S. (1998). Numeracy counts! Mussoorie: National
Literacy Resource Centre.
Suh, J., & Seshaiyer, P. (2013). Mathematical practices that promote 21st century skills. Mathematics
Teaching in the Middle School, 19(3), 132–137.
Suh, J. M., & Seshaiyer, P. (2014). Developing strategic competence by teaching using the common
core Mathematical practices. Annual Perspectives in Mathematics Education, 77–87.
Suh, J., & Seshaiyer, P. (2015). Examining teachers’ understanding of the Mathematical learning
progression through vertical articulation during lesson study. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 18(3), 207–229.
Suh, J., & Seshaiyer, P. (2016). Modeling Mathematical ideas: Developing strategic competence in
elementary and middle school. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

Rakhi Banerjee is an Associate Professor in the School of Education, Azim Premji University,
Bengaluru, India. She has taught at various levels: schools, undergraduate programmes and post-
graduate programmes in education. Her research interests include rethinking elementary mathe-
matics content to promote children’s mathematical thinking and reasoning abilities and develop-
ing teacher capacities to imagine classroom practices and environments, which support student
learning.

Padmanabhan Seshaiyer is a Professor of Mathematical Sciences and the Associate Dean for the
College of Science at George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia. He also serves as the Director of
the Center for Outreach in Mathematics Professional Learning and Educational Technology. His
research interests are in the broad areas of computational mathematics, scientific computing, com-
putational biomechanics and STEM education. During the last two decades, Dr. Seshaiyer initiated
and directed a variety of educational programs including graduate and undergraduate research, K-
12 outreach, teacher professional development and enrichment programs to foster the interest of
students and teachers in STEM at all levels.