Abstract
In international comparisons for mathematics in PISA and TIMSS, Asia outperforms England considerably at secondary level. For geometry this difference is even greater. With a new maths curriculum having come into play in England in 2014, and hence the need to explore the impact of the curriculum on student achievement, this article focuses on how differences in achievement might be attributed to differences in ‘opportunity to learn’ within a country’s curriculum. The aims of this paper are two-fold. Firstly we want to provide an integrated conceptual framework that combines elements from educational effectiveness, a curriculum model and ‘opportunity to learn’ for analysing curriculum effects, which we call the Dynamic Opportunities in the Curriculum (DOC) framework. Secondly, using multilevel models, we empirically investigate with TIMSS 2011 data whether the ‘opportunity to learn’ in the curriculum is associated with achievement in geometry education in six countries, thus validating that model. The results show that our conceptualisation of ‘opportunity to learn’ can be useful in analysing curriculum effects.
Highlights
The mathematics and science performance of students in a comparative perspective has long been scrutinized
We propose that we focus on variables regarding “opportunity to learn” (OTL) in our study
From the perspective of OTL we argue that the actual time devoted to teaching the curriculum content, here geometry, is what provides the “opportunity to learn.”
Summary
The mathematics and science performance of students in a comparative perspective has long been scrutinized. Several large-scale assessments like the Trend in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) give rise to discussions about the relative performance of countries for mathematics, science and literacy and often end in heated debates, celebrations and criticism about “going up the rankings” or “going down the rankings” (Coughlan, 2016). For many years it has been clear that there are distinct differences in mathematics education in the east and in the west (Leung, 2001; Shimizu and Williams, 2013). This became apparent again when the PISA 2015 results, based on the achievement of 15 year olds, were released (Organisation for Economic Cooperation Development, 2016).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
