Mathematics Curriculum Evaluation

Differentes recherches ont etabli l'influence des enseignants sur la qualite de l'apprentissage des enfants. La question est de savoir ce qui rend un enseignant plus performant qu'un autre. Quatre indicateurs, etudies par les AA., peuvent etre utilises dans ce but : les acquisitions pedagogiques des enseignants, leurs participations dans les programmes d'etudes, leurs connaissances des matieres enseignees et leurs strategies pedagogiques

Preface. Section I: Perspectives on Teacher Education. Considering the Paradoxes, Perils, and Purposes of Conceptualizing Teacher Development T.J. Cooney. A Review of Research Perspectives on Mathematics Teacher Education S. Lerman. Section II: Making Sense of Mathematics. Investigating Mathematics and Learning to Teach Mathematics J.P. da Ponte. Using the Intuitive-Rules Theory as a Basis for Educating Teachers D. Tirosh, et al. The Use of New Technologies as a Vehicle for Restructuring Teachers' Mathematics C. Laborde. Section III: Making Sense of Teaching. Digitizing Real Teaching Practice for Teacher Education Programmes: The MILE Approach F. Goffree, W. Oonk. Thinking Teaching: Seeing Mathematics Teachers as Active Decision Makers P. Sullivan, J. Mousley. Mathematics Teaching, Teacher Education, and Educational Research: Developing 'Practical Theorising' in Initial Teacher Education K. Ruthven. Preparing Teachers for Handling Students' Mathematical Communication: Gathering Knowledge and Building Tools A. Sfard, C. Kieran. Section IV: Making Sense of the Context of Teaching. An Approach for Supporting Teachers' Learning in Social Context P. Cobb, K. McClain. Educating Student Teachers About Values in Mathematics Education A.J. Bishop. Pedagogical Values, Mathematics Teaching, and Teacher Education: Case Studies of Two Experienced Teachers C. Chin, et al. Section V: Making Sense of the Complexity of Teacher Education. Teachers' Growth is More Than the Growth of Individual Teachers: The Case of Gisela K. Krainer. Developing Mathematics Teaching: Teachers, Teacher Educators, and Researchers as Co-Learners B. Jaworski. Index.

Introduction: blended learning has emerged as a prominent area of research in the field of education, with particular interest in its application to mathematics education.Objective: this study aims to systematically explore the research status and development trends of blended learning in mathematics education.Methods: this study utilized 419 journal articles on blended learning in mathematics education, published in the Web of Science Core Collection from 2004 to 2024, as the research sample. Guided by the PRISMA framework, statistical and bibliometric analysis methods were employed. CiteSpace software was used to visualize knowledge maps, including authors, countries, and keyword timeline views, providing a comprehensive analysis.Results: the study showed that current research on blended learning in mathematics education is in a rapid development stage, with a loose network of collaborating authors, and that the United States has the largest number of published papers in the field of blended learning research in mathematics education, with a strong international impact. The research results were mainly published in Computers & Education, International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education and other journals. Blended learning in mathematics education research, from initial exploration to application extension to deeper integration with technology, showed a trend of development from conceptual framework building to strategy application to technology driven.Conclusions: this study provides valuable insights for educators and researchers to improve the effectiveness and validity of blended learning implementation in mathematics education.

A challenge of teacher education is to produce graduate primary school teachers who are confident and competent teachers of mathematics. Various approaches to primary school teacher education in mathematics have been investigated, but primary teacher education graduates still tend to be diffident in their teaching of mathematics. In an age where personal use of mobile technologies is becoming ubiquitous, such technologies could provide a conduit into making mathematics teaching and learning more accessible to primary teacher education students. This paper introduces the use of a pedagogical framework which can scaffold mobile learning in mathematics teacher education programs. The paper discusses ways in which this framework, the Mobile Pedagogical Framework, can contribute to enhanced primary teacher education in mathematics, using mobile technologies. The Framework has three major dimensions: authenticity, collaboration and personalisation. Each of these will be discussed in terms of their alignment with current ideas about quality teaching in mathematics.

Selected Regular Lectures from the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education

There has been an increased focus on preparing and supporting teachers to teach mathematics and what research might move the field of mathematics teacher education forward. While this is relevant to the work of both in-service and preservice teachers, an often-forgotten mechanism in the cycle of mathematics teacher education involves the preparation of doctoral students as future mathematics teacher educators. This chapter provides a summary of the current literature on doctoral student learning in mathematics education by answering the following questions: (1) What knowledges and skills should doctoral students in mathematics education learn through their doctoral studies? (2) What structures and initiatives have supported this learning? We identified six categories of knowledge and skills necessary for doctorates in mathematics teacher education. Structures that support learning across doctoral programs are similar, however the specific aspects within them vary. Based on our findings, we offer direction for further investigation regarding doctoral student learning in mathematics education to improve the field of mathematics teacher education more broadly.

In the past four decades, attention in research in teaching has turned from the content of teaching and learning to the context in which they occur. Many researchers now view learning as active construction rather than passive absorption, and teaching as facilitation rather than transmission. A similar shift has occurred in the view of the school curriculum, now less a collection of topics than a set of experiences. In mathematics, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics publication The Agenda for Action (1980) opened a new dimension to how many educators view teaching. The recommendations in the Agenda emphasized problem solving and applications; a reexamination of basic skills; incorporation of calculators, computers, and other technology into the mathematics curriculum; and more mathematics for all students. As a response to the Agenda, in 1986, the Board of Directors of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics NCTM) established the Commission on Standards for School Mathematics to help improve the quality of school mathematics (NCTM, 1989). Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM, 1989), which established a framework to guide reform in school mathematics, is the product of the Commission. This document, along with the Professional Teaching Standards (NCTM, 1991) and the Assessment Standards for Teaching Mathematics (NCTM, 1995), set forth a vision of school mathematics curriculum and teaching and a view of evaluation different from what most teachers experienced in their mathematical education and what they found in most textbooks. If the mathematics curriculum changes as proposed, the need for competent teachers will become more acute. Teachers will need more and better preparation, for teaching for better mathematics (Begle, 1972) demands better teaching of mathematics. The recommendations of the current reform for school mathematics focus attention on teaching. They require that teacher education programs play an integral role in familiarizing teachers with current recommendations and preparing them with the professional knowledge base for realizing those visions. Research on mathematics teachers and teacher education indicate that this process is neither straightforward nor simple. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics standards for content, pedagogy, and evaluation provide the direction, but not the mechanism, for reform in school mathematics. A mechanism for reform must be developed; without it even current guidance will not affect the teaching of mathematics. This mechanism must take into account the challenges of preparing teachers to teach in accord with the proposed visions and provide a perspective on how to deal with the complexities of teacher change. This mechanism must serve as the vehicle for improving teaching as well as teacher education. The mathematics teacher education community has recognized this need for some time. Bruner (1966) indicated that a theory of instruction must specify how a body of knowledge should be structured so that learners can most readily grasped it. A theory of instruction should identify the most effective ways in to facilitate learning. Cooney and Brown (1985) argue that a theory or theories in mathematics education must ultimately provide a basis for improving the teaching and learning of mathematics. Recent researchers on mathematics teacher education have examined four reform areas in educating mathematics teachers: teacher beliefs, content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and pedagogical reasoning. In this article, I synthesize research on these areas and provide several recommendations for the reform in teacher education. Beliefs I believe teachers make decisions about students and curriculum in rational ways according to conceptions they hold. To design teacher education programs without understanding those conceptions and their role creates a context where teacher educators believe that their insights into the teaching/learning cycle are synonymous or even consistent with those of the teachers they teach (Cooney, 1994, p. …

The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically changed the educational landscape, especially regarding technology integration in mathematics learning. Programmed learning, a pedagogical approach that leverages specific technologies such as interactive software, online platforms, and virtual learning environments to create more effective learning experiences, has received increased attention during this period. This research is a systematic literature review that aims to evaluate the impact of programmed learning on mathematics education before and after the pandemic. Using the PRISMA method, this research examines 41 articles published between 1960 and 2025 to find the benefits of programmed learning in mathematics education. Participants in this study included undergraduate students, graduate students, lecturers/teachers, and high school students from various educational institutions. The research results show that programmed learning provides significant benefits, including more exciting and practical teaching approaches, improved academic grades, and increased student interest in mathematics. However, this research also reveals shortcomings in terms of uneven technological infrastructure and a lack of training for teachers in implementing programmed learning optimally. These deficiencies include unequal access to technological tools and a need for more technical skills among educators. This research provides recommendations for improving technology infrastructure and better teacher training to maximize the potential of programmed learning. This research indicates a significant increase in teaching effectiveness and student interest in mathematics, making programmed learning a potential approach in modern mathematics education. Integrating technology in mathematics education through programmed learning is relevant and essential in facing educational challenges in the post-pandemic era, offering practical solutions for educators and institutions.

The use of technology in mathematics teaching-learning has been proven to be successful in increasing students’ motivation, interests, and achievement. However, the use of technology in learning mathematics in answering the challenges of the digital era has not been successfully implemented as a whole with only 19.22% at the junior high school level and even at the senior high school level only 16.23%. Teacher professionalism is not enough to guarantee the implementation of technology in mathematics education. Unequal facilities and infrastructure are also obstacles. This research aims to describe the obstacles of mathematics teachers in applying technology in mathematics teaching-learning. This research is a case study research with the subject of 12 mathematics teachers in South Kalimantan, Indonesia. Data were collected using questionnaires and interviews. Data analysis was done using the Miles & Huberman model, with the step of data reduction, data display, and conclusion. The results showed that the obstacles of mathematics teachers in the digital era in implementing technology in mathematics teaching-learning included: (1) mathematics learning material that was less suitable for the use of technology; (2) facilities, infrastructure, and support provided by schools were inadequate for the use of technology in teaching-learning; (3) the level of teacher skills in using technology in mathematics teaching-learning. Some factors that influenced the emergence of these obstacles include (1) teachers assessments and point of views of the effectiveness in using technology in teaching-learning mathematics in the classroom; (2) unequal access to education services between schools in cities and villages; and (3) lack of training and information provided to the teachers about the use of technology in mathematics classes. Those obstacles obtained were common obstacles experienced by the teachers in South Kalimantan, Indonesia, both in urban and rural environments.

This study investigated the development of research on Project-Based Learning model with STEM approach in Mathematics Education through a bibliometric computational mapping analysis using VOSviewer. Publish or perish was used to get the article data from Google Scholar. The search process was guided by the article title and abstract, which referred to the keyword "Project-Based Learning Model with STEM approach in Mathematics Education". A total of 41 papers were considered relevant. The research period of the paper used was from the past 10 years (2014 to 2023) indexed by Google Scholar. The research results showed that the Project-Based Learning model with STEM approach in mathematics education research could be divided into three terms. The first term was teaching method in cluster 4 with 18 total links, 19 total link strengths, and 12 occurrences. The second term was STEM learning, included in cluster 6 with 15 full links, 15 total link strength, and 11 occurrences. The third term was STEM PjBL, included in cluster 8 with 13 total links, 15 total link strength, and 10 occurrences. The analysis results of the development of the Project-Based Learning model with STEM approach publications in mathematics education in the last ten years showed frequent fluctuations. From 2014 to 2016, publications increased at the same rate in 2016 and 2017 and decreased in 2018. It then increased again in 2019 to 2020 but decreased in 2021 and 2022. Until, in 2023, it rose again. The number of publications in 2023 could continue to grow because the data were taken in the middle of 2023. The result of the study shows that research opportunities for the Project-Based Learning model with the STEM approach, especially in mathematics education, still have high options and are related to other terms.

Once the COVID-19 crisis is over, will everything” return to normal” or will we instead witness an ongoing boom in online learning? A time of crisis is an opportunity for all education systems to look to the future; there is enormous potential for digital technology in mathematics education, regardless of the impact of COVID-19. In this paper, the researcher focuses on answering two research questions: (1) Is COVID-19 the gateway for digital learning in mathematics education? (2) What type of digital technology is being used in mathematics education during the COVID-19 pandemic? The study also provided a discussion on the implications that such digital technologies could have on research into the field of mathematics education and practice in addition to suggestions for future research directions on this topic. Interviews were chosen as techniques for the purpose of this research, which were undertaken with hundred and twenty mathematics teachers from different secondary schools in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The researcher found that 98% of participants believed that COVID-19 is the gateway for digital learning in mathematics education. In addition, 97% claimed that the use of online education by schools had expanded greatly following the coronavirus outbreak. This has resulted in various forms of software being used to facilitate communicate between teachers and students included mobile technologies, touchscreens and pen tablets, digital library and designing learning objects in mathematics education, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in mathematics, and computer algebra systems (CAS) such as Mathematical, Maple, MuPAD, MathCAD, Derive and Maxima.

The interrogation of often unintended practices of marginalisation has gained focus in research on mathematics teaching and mathematics teacher education throughout the last decades. In this introductory survey paper, work against marginalisation in these contexts of mathematics education is viewed in terms of work towards equity, diversity and inclusion. Based on this interpretation, we present a framework on awareness and practice of equity, diversity and inclusion in mathematics teaching and mathematics teacher education research. We then use this framework and a survey method of mapping review to identify and comment on a selection of studies. As a result, we illustrate three research moves towards equity, diversity and inclusion, in the form of interconnected themes: (1) Widening the understanding of the mathematics and the mathematics education curricula (2) Improving the practice and discussion of mathematics teaching (3) Unpacking ideologies in mathematics teaching and mathematics teacher education. We finally examine the themes and the special issue papers together to foreground commonalities regarding awareness of discriminatory discourses and practices of creating and distributing opportunities for all groups, including those historically and currently marginalised. Despite the important increase of equity-driven principles of awareness, we conclude that mathematics education research on teaching and on teacher education needs more examples of practices whose development has been proved to challenge marginalisation.

The social, political and educational policy changes in South Africa provide a backdrop to this paper. Its authors report recent (2000–2006) research into the education of science and mathematics teachers in this country. International research trends provide a frame for the survey. Findings suggest that most of the research in both science and mathematics teacher education consists of small scale qualitative studies, generally conducted in urban contexts and among teachers participating in formal in-service programmes. In science teacher education, research emphases appear to have shifted towards process skill development, nature of science (NOS) and indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) while still acknowledging the importance of content knowledge. In mathematics teacher education research, there is a strong emphasis on the specificity of mathematical knowledge for mathematics teaching and teacher learning, with curriculum reform recently in focus in both mathematics and science teacher education literature. Gaps in the research have also been identified, including the education of primary mathematics and science teachers, teacher education for life sciences and the education of teachers in and for rural contexts. The authors argue for further research into mathematics and science teacher education and conclude with a research agenda focused on an examination of teacher education practices, investigations into primary teacher education, studies into life sciences teacher education and empirical research across diverse schooling contexts, with particular attention being paid to rural education.

In some ways, conducting (mathematics) education research is like the situation of having a few persons trying to describe an elephant in the dark. Depending on the approach taken by each person, a different part of the huge animal is felt. Inferences about what the animal looks like were thus made based on these incomplete ‘views’ of the animal. Likewise, in looking for more effective ways of understanding and facilitating the learning and teaching of mathematics in school, we adopt a variety of approaches. The cognitive and affective approaches have been two dominant ones. A third, volitional approach may also be utilised. This approach focuses on an individual’s motivation and will to act in particular ways. Its relation to cognition and affect can be seen in Andrew Tallon’s (1997) book title ‘Affection, cognition, volition as triune consciousness’, and is reflected in Benjamin Bloom’s wellknown three taxonomies of educational objectives, namely cognitive, affective and psychomotor. This third approach to educational research thus emphasises teachers’ and learners’ motivations and dispositions to teach and learn, respectively. The construct of the socioculturally-based values in mathematics education, first proposed by Alan Bishop (1988), reflects this approach. This ZDM issue has the theme, ‘Values in East Asian Mathematics Education—The Third Wave’. The wave metaphor not only encapsulates the energy for change that is generated by the values approach, but it also implies the ongoing relevance of the previous two waves (i.e. cognition and affect) since waves overlap. Collectively, the articles in this issue present the reader with a complementary approach to understanding the dominance of East Asian education systems in the various international comparative studies of student achievement in mathematics. The first article by Bishop traces the growth of the values construct in mathematics education. It sets the scene for this issue through telling a personal story that began some 20 years ago with the introduction of the values construct to the mathematics education research and professional communities. In the next article, Wong, Wong and Wong describe how the values embedded in the major Chinese schools of thought (namely, Confucianism, Daoism and Buddhism) have impacted on school mathematics pedagogy in the Chinese culture. We will also be looking at the relevant Japanese values, as Baba et al. trace the development of these values in a historical context. Seah and Wong’s article then provides an overview of the Third Wave project, an international consortium of research teams which undertake studies relating to the harnessing of relevant values in mathematics pedagogy. This is followed by two country reports of a study undertaken by the Third Wave project. Law, Wong and Lee identify and discuss the values espoused by students and their teachers when mathematics was learnt particularly effectively (from the students’ perspectives) in Hong Kong classrooms. Lim and Kor, on the other hand, report on the values underlying effective mathematics lessons as espoused and enacted by teachers who had been professionally recognised as excellent in Malaysia. Seah and Peng’s article which follows these country reports is aimed at better situating the values that would have been reported in the East Asian mathematics classrooms. It W. T. Seah (&) Monash University, Melbourne, Australia e-mail: WeeTiong.Seah@monash.edu

Team-based learning, an instructional practice composed of evidence-based practices, has a positive effect on student learning outcomes. Connections between team-based learning and mathematics education support a compelling argument for the potential effectiveness of team-based learning in mathematics. Documentation of the implementation of team-based learning in mathematics courses is both recent and few, and an analysis of the emerging scholarship regarding team-based learning in mathematics education has yet to be done. To understand if team-based learning is indeed a viable approach that fosters mathematical thinking, learning, and development as the creators of practice claim, we conducted a systematic-narrative hybrid literature review of empirical studies of team-based learning in mathematics education. We found just five articles that met our inclusion criteria; all studies found were conducted in post-secondary education settings. We find these studies demonstrate promising preliminary results that support students’ content mastery and engagement in mathematics. Adopting an evaluation framework for content analysis of team-based learning studies, we found that there are wide variations in the efficacy and reporting of team-based learning implementation in mathematics education. We discuss the lack of consensus on what team-based learning looks like in mathematics education and offer suggestions for future research.