See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326671223

Curriculum Matters: What We Teach and What Students Gain

Article  in  International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education · July 2018

DOI: 10.1007/s10763-018-9915-x

CITATIONS READS

0 2

2 authors:

Zhaoyun Wang Douglas E. Mcdougall

University of Toronto University of Toronto
5 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    32 PUBLICATIONS   531 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Teacher Collaboration in Grade 9 Mathematics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zhaoyun Wang on 28 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9915-x

Curriculum Matters: What We Teach and What Students Gain

Zhaoyun Wang 1 & Douglas McDougall 1

Received: 11 October 2017 / Accepted: 12 July 2018/

# Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2018

Abstract
This study examined and compared the intended mathematics curricula according to
topic coverage, focus, coherence, and learning progression in grades 1 – 12 within
China and the province of Ontario, Canada. The findings show that the overall topics in
the two curricula are similar: Chinese curriculum covers 78 topics out of 79 while the
Ontario curriculum covers 76. The two curricula also share a similar general sequence
such as topics for transfer stages from numbers to functions by starting with constant
mathematics, then variable mathematics, and finally functions. However, the detailed
topic design of the 2 curricula differs markedly. The Chinese curriculum includes few
topics in each year, a short duration or span of each topic, and a fast-paced topic
progression. The Ontario curriculum, in contrast, includes more topics each year, longer
duration of many topics, and a small pace of topic progression in grades 1 – 8 and a fast
pace of topic progression in grades 9 – 12. Because of different curriculum designs in
grades 1 – 12, the intended curriculum may influence students’ cognitive structures of
mathematics, learning behavior and thinking, learning efficiency and achievement, and
teachers’ professional development. This calls for more refined and advanced research
on the defined list of topics, topic organization, and terms to study curriculum in order
to increase student learning opportunities.

Keywords Comparative education . Intended curriculum . Mathematics curriculum .

Mathematics topics . Topic coherence

Introduction

Over the last few decades, East Asian students have consistently outperformed their
counterparts within Western countries in large-scale international mathematics and

* Zhaoyun Wang
zhaoyun.wang@mail.utoronto.ca

1
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto,
Ontario M5S 1V6, Canada
 Z. Wang, D. McDougall

science examinations. For example, the results of Trends in International Mathematics

and Science Study (TIMSS), which tests students’ achievement at grades 4 and 8,
showed that East Asian students, from Hong Kong SAR, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, and
Singapore, outperformed their counterparts in other countries including Canadian grade
eight students (Mullis, Martin, Foy & Hooper, 2016). Researchers have sought to
understand the reasons why there are performance gaps in educational systems.
Chinese students do not participate in TIMSS studies, but they do participate in the
Programme for International Students Assessment (PISA), which tests grade 10 stu-
dents’ (at age 15 years) abilities in applying mathematics knowledge to solve real-
world problems. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and De-
velopment (OECD) reports, Canadian students’ performance, though good, was
outperformed by East Asian students including those within the Chinese curriculum
(OECD, 2016). Although PISA and TIMSS focus on different aspects of applying
mathematics knowledge, both test students’ fundamental knowledge which is linked to
students’ ability to problem solve.
According to Lloyd, Cai and Tarr (2017), researchers have focused on examining
three forms of curriculum: intended, implemented, and attained. For example, they
have examined curriculum differences in the design of specific topics such as arithmetic
average, textbooks, and official curriculum (Lloyd et al., 2017). These research results
have yielded some insights into why students perform differently when different
curricula are used in teaching and learning. However, the field of curriculum studies
still lacks cross-national analysis of intended curriculum and has key issues that require
further study (Lloyd et al., 2017). For example, it is not clear how curriculum design
impacts students’ achievement (Lloyd et al., 2017; Schmidt, Houang & Cogan, 2002).
Scholars have called for further research focused on the careful analysis of official
curriculum or intended curriculum to increase its impact on student learning opportu-
nities (Lloyd et al., 2017; Tran, Reys, Teuscher, Dingman & Kasmer, 2016).
In this paper, we assume that, when the intended curriculum design is different, the
learning progression, the development of knowledge structures, and the cognition of
students will be affected, leading to different types of students’ achievement. We
employ the intended mathematics curricula from mainland China and the Canadian
province of Ontario to examine similarities and differences in terms of topic coverage,
focus, coherence, topic organization, and progression. The results will depict two
different curriculum patterns within two educational jurisdictions and make topic
setting visible.

Intended Curriculum Research and Characteristics

Concept and Forms of Curriculum

Within education, curriculum refers to a sequence of learning experience or opportu-

nities and is embodied in written curriculum materials (Schmidt, McKnight, Houang,
Wang, Wiley, Cogan & Wolfe, 2001). The design of written curriculum materials is
involved in selection, organization, and use of learning experience. According to Tyler
(1949), the rationale in developing any curriculum and plan of instruction should
consider how educational experiences are selected and organized. Tyler (1949) states
Curriculum Matters: What We Teach and What Students Gain

five general principles that apply to the selection of learning experiences. The first
principle is that, for a given objective to be attained, a student must have experiences
that give him a chance to practice the kind of behavior implied by the objective. The
second principle being that Bthe learning experiences must be such that the student
obtains satisfactions from carrying on the kind of behaviour implied by the objectives^
(p. 66). The third is the reactions desired experience within the range of possibility for
students’ involvement. The fourth principle is that many particular experiences can be
used to attain the same educational objectives. The final principle is that the same
learning experience will bring several outcomes.
Tyler (1949) emphasized the organization of learning experiences because this
influences the efficiency of instruction and the degree to which it can effect major
educational changes for learners. He stated three major criteria to consider for effective
organization: continuity, sequence, and integration. These are Bthe basic guiding criteria
in the building of an effective scheme of organization of learning experience^ (p. 86).
According to Tyler (1949), continuity means the vertical reiteration of major curric-
ulum elements and involves the recurring emphasis in the students’ experience upon
particular curriculum elements. Sequence is linked to continuity but goes beyond it,
allowing successive experiences to build upon preceding ones and go more broadly and
deeply into the matters involved. Finally, Bintegration refers to the horizontal relation-
ship of curriculum experience^ (p. 85). The importance of organizing principles in such
a way is that the three criteria apply to the experiences of the learner. BThis means that
the organizing principles need to be considered in terms of their psychological signif-
icance to the learner^ (p. 96). Hence, the principles of selecting and organizing learning
experience should permeate the curriculum.
Scholars have classified curriculum in four levels: official curriculum or standards,
textbooks, teacher implement content, and student learning (Hirsch & Reys, 2009;
Schmidt et al., 2001). Because textbooks embody specific academic goals for specific
body of students and are used by teachers for teaching, they can represent the intended
curriculum which includes official curriculum and textbooks (Schmidt et al., 2001).
Hence, the curriculum can be considered to have three forms: intended, implemented
(enacted), and attained (assessed) (Cai, 2014; Husen, 1967; Schmidt et al., 2001). The
intended curriculum refers to the formally written documents that set system-level
expectations for learning. It includes goals and expectations along with official syllabi
or curriculum standards and approved textbooks in some countries. The implemented
(enacted) curriculum refers the instructional practice that teachers actually use in the
classroom. This will also include the materials that the teachers use, the teacher’s
experience, values, and beliefs about teaching. The attained (assessed) curriculum is
defined as what students actually learn and manifest in their achievements and attitude.
Figure 1 shows the relationships between intended, enacted, and attained curricula.
The solid line arrows show the possible empirical links between the forms, and the
dashed lines show the definitional links between curriculum levels (Schimidt et al.,
2001), showing that intended curriculum plays a fundamental role for teaching and
learning. Official curriculum provides direct statements of the content and performance
levels desired for students (Schmidt et al., 2001). It provides guidance to textbooks
writers, teachers, and curriculum developers regarding what should be taught and when
the content and processes should be delivered to students and guiding the assessment
designed to students’ learning (Hirsch & Reys, 2009; Schmidt et al., 2001).
 Z. Wang, D. McDougall

Intended Implemented Attained

Curriculum Curriculum Curriculum

Content Teacher Content Student

Standards Textbook Coverage Learning

Fig. 1 Adopted from conceptual model relating curriculum and achievement (Schmidt et al., 2001)

Textbooks bridge official curriculum and teacher content coverage and include
content for student learning. Students learn mathematics based on learning opportuni-
ties or experiences provided by teachers who implement or enact textbooks. Most
teachers use textbooks (Lloyd et al., 2017; Schmidt et al., 2002).
By studying the results from TIMSS exams, Schmidt and his colleagues (Schmidt
et al., 2002) found that teachers cover the content of the textbook and follow the depth
and duration of each topic in textbook. They conclude that the content stated in
intended curriculum and in textbooks is taught in classrooms in most TIMSS countries
(Schmidt et al., 2002). Hence, the student’s performance can be traced on given topics
as comparable with the quality of the intended content.

Research on Intended Mathematics Curriculum

Researchers examining intended curriculum focus on two elements: textbooks and

official curricula. Studies have examined or compared textbooks and specific topics
in different education systems such as Cai, Lo, and Watanabe (2002) who examined
how American and Asian mathematics curricula were designed to facilitate students’
understanding of arithmetic average. Their conclusion was that the American and Asian
curricula took different approaches to introducing the concept. Alajmi (2012) furthers
the research into these national differences of approach by analyzing the presentation of
fractions in textbooks designed for the elementary grades in Kuwait, Japan, and the
USA. His findings showed that Japanese textbooks addressed fractions in grade three,
while the USA and Kuwait introduced fractions in grade one. The US and Kuwait
textbooks are larger and include much more repetition than Japanese textbooks.
Though the countries’ curricula use different ways to illustrate fraction ideas, all focus
on standard arithmetic algorithms. Hong and Choi (2014) conducted a case study of
quadratic equations sections between Korean and American textbooks. They compared
and analyzed some topics, contents, and items. The results showed that Korean students
learned some topics earlier than their American counterparts. The American textbooks
included more problems requiring higher level cognitive demand referring to procedure
with connections and doing mathematics. They concluded that the differences in
textbooks might not be the reason for the achievement gaps between Korean and
American students. Their study called for further research into why there was an
achievement gap between these two groups of students.
Curriculum Matters: What We Teach and What Students Gain

The second area of research on intended curriculum is the comparison of official

curricula. Tran and his colleagues (Tran et al., 2016) reported a commentary that there
are two approaches: indirect comparison and direct comparison to analysis of curric-
ulum standards. They discussed the curriculum studies that mainly focus on comparing
American from state to state as well as internationally.
The indirect comparison approach refers to the use of a predefined framework or list
of topics to code and match curriculum standards. The indirect comparison approach
compares a set of curriculum standards directly by another set of standards. For
example, Schmidt and his colleagues (Schmidt et al., 2002; Schmidt & Houang,
2012) used the indirect approach method to compare curriculum standards, when these
scholars compared the intended curriculum, they focused on what mathematics is
emphasized, the level of cognitive demand, and when and how particular topics are
introduced and developed (Tran et al., 2016).
The TIMSS results over the last two decades have assisted scholars in identifying
top-performing countries in mathematics enabling them to compare the curriculum
differences between both top-performing countries and those that have lower per-
formance outcomes. Schmidt and his colleagues (Schmidt et al., 2002) sorted
eighth-grade student scores from the TIMSS 1995 competition and identified the
six top-achieving countries in mathematics as being Singapore, Korea, Japan, Hong
Kong SAR, Belgium (Flemish-speaking), and the Czech Republic, which were
defined as A+ countries statistically outperformed at least 35 other countries in the
TIMSS 1995 study. After analyzing the curriculum standards of these top-achieving
countries, Schmidt and his colleagues developed a curriculum model called A+
composite that includes 32 core topics in grades 1 – 8 mathematics. In the model of
A+ composite, the 32 core topics are intended by at least two thirds in the curriculum
standards of top achieving countries.
Since 2010, most US states have adopted a core curriculum in mathematics. Schmidt
and Houang (2012) used the A+ composite model to further compare the mathematics
topics required in the US Common Core State Standard (CCSS) concluding that the
standards are similar to A+ composite (Schmidt & Houang, 2012), suggesting that the
US CCSS has similar mathematics topics to top-performing countries in grades 1 – 8.
Schmidt and his colleagues defined the model of A+ countries as a coherent curriculum
(Schmidt et al., 2002; Schmidt & Houang, 2012) and employed this model to compare
the US states’ and districts’ curriculum standards in terms of topic coverage, focus, and
coherence (Schmidt & Houang, 2012; Schmidt et al., 2002). They found that some
states in the US intended curricula were incoherent and unfocused.

Important Characteristics Examined in Intended Curriculum

Scholars, within this field, use specific concepts to examine curriculum: topic coverage,
focus, coherence, and learning progression (Schmidt et al., 2002). The coverage of
topics refers to the number of topics intended to be taught by teachers in all grades.
Focus defines the number of topics covered at each grade. Coherence refers to the
alignment of specified ideas, the depth to which these ideas are studied, and the
sequencing of the topics within each grade and across the grades (Fortus & Krajcik,
2012; Schmidt et al., 2002). Curriculum as Ba sequence of topics and performances that
are logical and reflect, where appropriate, the sequential or hierarchical nature of the
 Z. Wang, D. McDougall

disciplinary content from which the subject matter derives^ (Schmidt et al., 2002, p.
19). Coherence also refers to:

[A] set of content standards must evolve from particulars (e.g., the meaning and
operations of whole numbers, including simple mathematics facts and routine
computational procedures associated with whole numbers and fractions) to
deeper structures inherent in the discipline. This deeper structure then serves as
a means for connecting the particulars (such as an understanding of the rational
number system and its properties) (p. 19)

Schmidt and Houang (2012) use this definition to recognize that Bcoverage of topics is
only part of the definition of coherence^ (p. 295), and they used statistical analysis to
confirm that focus and coherence were not significantly related to achievement sepa-
rately but were in combination suggesting that focus was interlinked with coherence
(2007). The last key concept related to intended curriculum is learning progression,
which has been described as Bhow learners develop key disciplinary concepts and
practices within a grade level and across multiple grades^ (Fortus & Krajcik, 2012, p.
784). Topics include a set of related concepts such that topic progression is closely
related to learning progression.
Fortus and Krajcik (2012) defined the underlying idea of learning progression as
Blearning unfolds across time as students link previous ideas and experiences to new
ideas and experiences^ (p. 784). They also explained, B[a] learning progression typi-
cally organizes concepts from particulars to deeper and more integrated structures^ (p.
786) making when and how particular mathematical topics are introduced and devel-
oped, and the span and duration of topics inclusive to this category.
The relationship between curriculum coherence and learning progression is closely
associated. BThe process of using learning progressions to construct coherent learning
goals that are the foundations for units is also the process by which the learning
progression are validated^ (Fortus & Krajeik, 2012, p. 786). Coherence includes
sequencing of the topics of a subject, while learning progression regards how learners
develop key concepts and practice across time (Fortus & Krajeik, 2012). Learning goal
coherence is based on content standards. From this, we can assume that topic progres-
sion is closely related to student learning progression. For example, a topic that is
completed within 3 versus 8 years influences the students learning progression.

Methods

The data for this study were chosen from the Ontario mathematics curricula for grades
1 – 8 (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2005a, b), grades 9 and 10 (Ontario Ministry of
Education, 2005a, b), and grades 11 and 12 (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2007)
within the academic stream and the People’s Republic of China’s mathematics curric-
ulum framework (Chinese Ministry of Education, 2011) and textbooks published
before 2014 from the People’s Education Press. Since the Chinese curriculum does
not show detailed requirements for each grade, the data sources also included textbooks
published by the People’s Education Press. The Chinese education system divides its
grades into levels of grades 1 – 6, 7 – 9, and 10 – 12. However, to match the Ontario
Curriculum Matters: What We Teach and What Students Gain

education system, which divides its grades into levels of grades 1 – 8 and 9 – 12, we
considered the Chinese curricula using similar levels of grades 1 – 8 and 9 – 12.
We defined a list of topics before coding data. There are 79 topics in this list,
including the 32 topics in the model of A+ composite developed by Schmidt and his
colleagues (Schmidt et al., 2002) and 37 topics mainly required in Chinese mathematics
curricula from grades 7 – 12. The order of topics for grades 1 – 8 is the same as the
sequence of A+ composite model developed by Schmidt and his colleagues (Schmidt
et al., 2002) and some additional topics listed as being required in grade 7 – 8 Chinese
textbooks. The order of the topics for grades 9 – 12 from Ontario were compared to the
sequence listed in Chinese textbooks published by People’s Education Press. The topics
from Ontario and China intended curriculum materials were then coded and matched
with the 79 topics selected for this study.
We investigated how 79 topics are organized in the grades 1 – 12 mathematics
curricula within the two jurisdictions. To match the A+ composite pattern used by
Schmidt et al. (2002) and to make clear depictions of the topic organization, four
two-dimensional tables were created for coding topics and their distribution: two for
grades 1 – 8 topics and two for grades 9 – 12 topics for each curriculum to
demonstrate Ontario and Chinese topics, respectively. Similar to the A+ composite
table (Schmidt et al., 2002), in the two-dimensional tables, we list topics in the first
column and grades in the first row. If a topic is intended in a grade, a B*^ is placed in
the intersection of the topic column and the grade row. The table was used to analyze
the coverage of topics at various grade levels as they are reflected in the internal
logical structure of mathematics (Schmidt et al., 2002). Data analyses concentrated
on the how the two intended curricula organize the grades 1 – 12 mathematics
content and topics in terms of coverage, focus, coherence, and learning progression.
In this study, the definitions of these terms are the same as above. Although Schmidt
and Houang (2012) described coverage of topics as part of coherence, we chose to
distinguish it as a characteristic of curriculum. We see the coverage of topics as the
index of selecting learning experiences or topics.

Findings

In the following sections, we will discuss the topic coverage, foci, coherence, and learning
progression of each curriculum. We discuss grades 1 – 8 and grades 9 – 12 separately.

Design and Content Strand Classification

The Ontario and Chinese curricula are similar in design, including curriculum expec-
tations, mathematics content, content arrangement or learning progression, and assess-
ment. The list of topics to be taught from grades 1 – 12 is similar except that a few
topics are moved to post-secondary education within the Ontario curriculum. While
curricula classify mathematics content into strands, their classification is different. The
Ontario curriculum classifies mathematics content at one through eight grade levels into
five strands: number sense and numeration, measurement, geometry and spatial sense,
patterning and algebra, and data management and probability. The grades 9 to 12
curriculum has a number of other strands depending on the grade and the course level.
 Z. Wang, D. McDougall

The Chinese curriculum classifies mathematics content into three strands for all grades:
numbers and algebra, shapes and geometry, and statistics and probability.

Grades 1 – 8 Mathematics Curricula in Ontario and China

Topic Coverage. The mathematics topic coverages in grades 1 – 8 designated in the

curricula of Ontario and China are listed in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The two
curricula cover 31 of the 32 topics listed in the model of A+ composite developed by
Schmidt and his colleagues (Schmidt et al., 2002) except Bslope and trigonometry.^
The Ontario curriculum covers 34 topics, including the 31 topics in A+ composite plus
three extra topics: (1) prime numbers and composite numbers and factorization, (2)
creating 2D/3D shapes with concrete materials, and (3) patterning and algebra, rela-
tions, and functions (formal). In contrast, the Chinese curriculum covers 43 topics,
including 33 topics matching the Ontario curriculum plus 10 topics from the Ontario
grades 9 – 12 curriculum. Our results show that, by the end of grade 8, the Chinese
mathematics curriculum has covered more topics than that of the Ontario grades 1 – 8
curriculum. By grade 8, students in China have been exposed to formal algebra for
2 years while Ontario students are just beginning formal algebra. Chinese students also
learn Euclidean geometry with the ideas of geometric proof and reasoning, while these
geometric topics are not in the elementary or secondary school curriculum in Ontario.

Focus. The numbers of topics in Ontario curriculum distributed in grades 1 – 8 are as

follows: 13, 15, 17, 21, 24, 28, 27, and 25, respectively. In contrast, the Chinese
curriculum has fewer topics in each grade. The numbers of topics in the grade 1 – 8
span are as follows: 5, 8, 11, 11, 16, 12, 14, and 9, respectively. We see that the Ontario
curriculum has more topics in each grade as compared to the Chinese curriculum. In
addition, the topic distribution in each grade within the Ontario curriculum shares
similarities with 21 US states’ intended curricula in 2002, as shown in Schmidt and his
colleagues’ research (Schmidt et al., 2002). Chinese curriculum is more focused than
the A+ countries in each grade. For the countries in the A+ composite group, the
numbers of core topics covered grades 1 – 8 by at least 67% of the six A+ countries are
as follows: 3, 3, 7, 15, 20, 17, 16, and 18, respectively. The numbers of additional
topics intended by A+ countries to complete a typical curriculum at each grade level are
as follows: 2, 6, 5, 1, 1, 3, 6, and 3, respectively (Schimdt et al., 2002).

Coherence. Findings about topic alignment of specific ideas, the depth at which the
ideas developed, sequencing of topics within each grade and across grades, and
hierarchical of topics are presented in this section. Because the two curricula have
different topics in each grade, the topics develop differently. The overall mathemat-
ics ideas developed across grade sequences are similar within the two curricula, but
there are big differences in topic arrangement. In the case of the overall sequence
from the arithmetic to algebra is constant mathematics (only numbers, few variable
operations), variable mathematics (with variable operations, few functions), and
functions. However, the detailed arrangement of topics is different. Where the
Ontario curriculum requires students to learn fractions beginning in grade 1, the
Chinese curriculum indicates that fractions are introduced in grade 3 after students
have learned some knowledge of division.
Curriculum Matters: What We Teach and What Students Gain

Table 1 Ontario mathematics curriculum topics (grades 1 – 8)

Topic Grade:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Whole number meaning * * * * * *

Whole number operations * * * * * *
Measurement units * * * * * * * *
Common fractions and operations * * * * * * *± *x/
Equations and formulas * * * *
Data representation and analysis * * * * * * * *
2D geometry: basics (shapes) * * * * * * * *
Polygons and circles (shapes) * * * * * * * *
Perimeter, area, and volume * * * * * * *
Rounding and significant figures * * *
Estimating computations * * * * * * * *
Properties of whole number operations * * * * * *
Prime numbers and composite numbers, factorization * * *
Estimating quantity and size * * * * * * * *
Decimal fractions * * * * *
Relationship of fractions and decimals * * * *
Properties of common and decimal fractions * * * *
Percentages * * *
Proportionality concepts and relationships * * * * *
Proportionality problems * * * * *
2D coordinate geometry * * * *
Geometry: transformations (reflections, rotation, enlargement) * * * * * *
Negative numbers, integers, and their properties * *
Number theory (prime numbers, factorization) * *
Exponents, roots, and radicals * *
Exponents and orders of magnitude * *
Measurement estimation and errors * * *
Create/build 2D/3D shapes with concrete materials * * * * * * * *
Constructions w/ straightedge and compass and software * * * *
3D geometry (basics) * * * * * * * *
Congruence and similarity (simple shapes) * * * * *
Rational numbers and their properties *
Patterning and algebra, relations, and functions (simple) * * * * * * * *
Patterning and algebra, relations, and functions (formal) *
Total topics per grade level 13 15 17 21 24 28 27 25

*-topic intended in Ontario mathematics curriculum

In the Ontario curriculum, the concept of division is introduced in grade 2 and

continued in grades 3 and 4. Students in grade 5 learn fraction addition and subtraction
and, in grade 6, learn fraction multiplication and division. Moreover, the Ontario
 Z. Wang, D. McDougall

Table 2 Chinese mathematics curriculum topics (grades 1 – 8)

Topic Grade:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Whole number meaning * * * *

Whole number operations * * * *
Measurement units * * * *
Common fractions and operations * * *± *x/
Equations and formulas *
Data representation and analysis * * * * * * * *
2D geometry: basics * * * * * *
Polygons and circles (shapes) * *
Perimeter, area, and volume * * * *
Rounding and significant figures *
Estimating computations *
Properties of whole number operations *
Prime numbers and composite numbers, factorization *
Estimating quantity and size
Decimal fractions * * *
Relationship of fractions and decimals *
Properties of common and decimal fractions * *
Percentages *
Proportionality concepts *
Proportionality problems *
2D coordinate geometry *
Geometry: transformations * *
Negative numbers, integers and their properties *
Number theory (prime numbers, factorization) * *
Exponents, roots, and radicals * *
Exponents and orders of magnitude *
Measurement estimation and errors *
Create/build 2D/3D shapes with concrete materials * * * * *
Constructions w/ straightedge and compass * *
3D geometry (basics) * *
Congruence and similarity *
Rational numbers and their properties *
Patterning and algebra, relations, and functions (simple) * *
Patterning and algebra, relations, and functions (formal) *
Algebraic expression, formulas ((a ± b)2, a2 − b2), and factorization * *
1-Variable linear equations, two inequality linear equations *
2-Variable linear equations *
Real numbers *
Rational expressions, operations, and equations *
3-Variable linear equations *
Curriculum Matters: What We Teach and What Students Gain

Table 2 (continued)

Topic Grade:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2D formal geometry and proof * *

Linear functions *
Inequality (properties, proof, and equations of 1 variable) *
Functions, reciprocal functions *
Total topics per grade level 5 8 11 11 16 12 14 9

*-topic intended in Ontario mathematics curriculum

curriculum indicates that students should learn common factors and common multiples
in grade 8 and places fraction comparison, addition, and subtraction in grade 7. In
contrast, the Chinese curriculum places the concepts of prime numbers and composite
numbers, factorization in grades 3 and 5, and common factors and common multipliers
in grade 5 before students learn fraction comparison, addition, and subtraction in that
same grade. This means that, when students learn fraction operations, the concepts of
common factors and common multipliers are prerequisite knowledge in Chinese
curriculum. Ontario curriculum arranges them in other ways. We need further research
to better understand the best way to arrange these concepts and operations can assist
students to grasp these mathematics concepts.
In the Ontario curriculum, although it includes the topic of congruence and simi-
larity, the mathematics content indicates these concepts through the use of simple
geometric shapes. In contrast, the Chinese curriculum includes two-dimensional Eu-
clidean geometry as one of the topics in grade 8 and includes theorems and formal
proofs. The Ontario curriculum does not formally develop ideas of proof and proving
until later in secondary school.

Learning Progression. This section describes when topics are introduced and developed,
the duration of these topics, and topics progression in the grades 1 – 8. We found that topics
are introduced in different grades and have different duration within the two curricula.
Many topics in Ontario curriculum are introduced earlier than within the Chinese curric-
ulum. For example, concepts of fractions, estimating computations, polygons and circles,
and patterning and algebra (simple) are introduced in grade one within Ontario curriculum,
while the Chinese curriculum does not introduce these in grade one.
Most topics in grades 1 – 8 in the Ontario curriculum are taught over a longer span
of years than many topics in the Chinese curriculum. For example, the Ontario
curriculum has fractions as a topic in all eight elementary school years, while the
Chinese curriculum has fractions as a topic for only 4 years. This also holds true for the
ideas surrounding patterning and algebra and relations and functions that introduced in
grade 1 within the Ontario curriculum and continue the next 7 years. In grade 8, there is
some formal algebra and formulas within Ontario, but not to the depth found in China
where students discuss (a + b)(c + d), (a ± b)2, and a2 − b2. In contrast, in the Chinese
curriculum, concepts of patterning and algebra are introduced in grade 5, continue in
grade 6, and then formal algebra commences in grade 7.
 Z. Wang, D. McDougall

Over the grade 1 – 8 span, each grade of the Chinese curriculum has fewer topics than
those countries in the A+ composite group, while the Ontario curriculum has many more
topics. The Ontario curriculum is spiral and repetitive, meaning students and teachers
revisit the same topic in multiple grades. In the Ontario curriculum, 10 topics out of 34 are
taught in every grade throughout grades 1 to 8, 9 topics are delivered in 5 to 7 years, 5
topics are delivered for 4 years, and 10 topics are delivered for 3 years or less (see Table 1).
In contrast, the Chinese curriculum is divided into three strands in elementary school:
arithmetic, geometry, and statistics (data). The three strands in secondary school (since
grade 7) are as follows: formal algebra, geometry, and statistics. The topics are taught for
no more than 3 years in secondary school. Only one out of 43 topics is taught throughout
the 8 years; two out of 43 topics is taught in 5 and 6 years, respectively; five topics are
taught for 4 years; and 36 topics are taught for 3 years or less (see Table 2).
Within Chinese curriculum, topic progression is faster than Ontario curriculum. An
example of this is that Chinese students learn algebra at a different rate compared to
Ontario students. They are exposed to one, two, and three variable systems of linear
equations and linear inequalities in grade 7, and learn algebra formulas such as (a + b)(c +
d), (a ± b)2, and a2 − b2, and factors in grade 8. Chinese students also learn Euclidean
geometry including proof and linear and reciprocal functions and properties in grade 8. In
contrast, Ontario students learn most of the linear equations and properties and algebra
formulas such as (a + b)(c + d), (a ± b)2, and a2 − b2 when they are in grade 9.

Grades 9 – 12 Mathematics Curricula in Ontario and China

This section describes the topic coverage, focus, coherence, and learning progression in
secondary schools.

Topic Coverage. In grade 9 – 12, the two curricula cover different topics. The Ontario
secondary school mathematics curriculum has 47 topics, and each grade includes 13, 10,
13, and 25 topics, respectively. In contrast, the Chinese curriculum has 35 topics, and each
grade includes 10, 9, 11, and 8 topics, respectively. Some topics in the Chinese curriculum
in this stage arranged in grades 7 – 8 compare to the Ontario curriculum. The difference
between the two curricula over the 4-year span is that the Chinese students learn more
topics about the concepts, equations, and properties of the circle, ellipse, hyperbola, and
parabola, as well as the properties of absolute value functions, proving inequality, and
complex number and operations while these topics were removed from the Ontario
curriculum and integrated into post-secondary mathematics courses. At the same time,
the Ontario curriculum also deemphasized formal geometry and analytic geometry and
the concept of formal proof and proving. Overall, the duration of 12 years sees Chinese
students having learned more formal geometry and three more topics (absolute value,
basic set theory and logic, and conics) than their Ontario peers.

Focus. In grades 9 – 11, the two compared curricula have a similar number of topics each
year. However, in grade 12, the Ontario curriculum has 17 additional topics because there
are three possible mathematics courses at this level. There are a total of 43 topics in grades
9 – 12 in the Ontario curriculum; 25 topics appear in grade 12, and many are new topics
because of these additional mathematics courses available to the Ontario secondary school
Curriculum Matters: What We Teach and What Students Gain

Table 3 Ontario mathematics curriculum topics (grades 9 – 12)

Topic Grade:

9 10 11 12

Data management and simple probability *

2D geometry: basics (shapes) *
Polygons and circles (shapes) *
Perimeter, area, and volume *
Proportionality concepts and relationships *
Proportionality problems *
2D coordinate geometry *
Exponents, roots, and radicals * *
Exponents and orders of magnitude * *
Congruence and similarity (simple shapes) *
Patterning and algebra, relations, and functions (formal) * *
Slope and trigonometry * *
Algebraic expression, formulas ((a ± b)2, a2 − b2), and factorization * *
1-Variable linear equations *
1-Variable inequality linear equation, two inequality linear equations *
2-Variable linear equations * *
Rational expressions, operations, and equations *
3-Variable linear equations *
Linear functions * *
Quadratic equations *
Quadratic functions and applications * *
Functions, reciprocal functions, inverse functions * *
Basic set theory and logic
Functions, exponential, and logarithm functions *
Sequences (arithmetic and geometric sequences/series) *
Angles, radians, trigonometric functions, and identities * *
Solving trigonometric equations *
Compound angle formulas (sin (a ± b) etc.) *
Graphs and properties of trigonometric functions *
Polynomial and rational equations *
2D vectors and operations, dot product *
Law of sine and cosine and application * *
Inequality: properties and solving inequality equations *
Absolute value, solving inequality equations with absolute value
Line and slopes, equations of line *
Simple linear programming
Curves and equations (operations and compositions) * *
Equations of circle (no relationship between line and circle) *
Ellipse, hyperbola and parabola equations, properties, and graphs
Lines, planes, and their relations *
 Z. Wang, D. McDougall

Table 3 (continued)

Topic Grade:

9 10 11 12

2D vectors, operations, dot products, cross products *

Permutation, combination, and binominal theorem * *
Probability and statistics (discrete random variables and distributions) *
Probability and statistics (normal distribution, linear regression) *
Discrete variables expectation and deviation *
Mathematical inductive reasoning * *
Limits *
Derivatives *
Derivatives and application (graphs, monotonicity, extremes) *
Complex numbers *
Total topics per grade level 13 10 13 25

*-topic intended in Ontario mathematics curriculum

students (see Table 3). In contrast, the Chinese curriculum concentrates on fewer topics,
especially in grade 12, where there are only eight new topics. There are only two topics
that are taught in more than 1 year (see Table 4). In China, much of the grade 12 year is
spent studying for the entrance exam while, in Ontario, there is no entrance exam, so
students have more time to concentrate on many new topics. However, in both educational
systems, the grade 12 students have to apply to post-secondary studies.

Coherence. Mathematics ideas developed in the two intended curricula are similar
across grades 1 – 12. Although Ontario curriculum repeats numerous mathematical
topics in grades 1 – 8, some topics in Ontario grades 9 and 10 are topics found in the
Chinese grades 7 and 8 curriculum. In grade 12, the Ontario curriculum covers topics
that are taught in grades 10, 11, and 12 in the Chinese curriculum. Both Ontario and
Chinese curricula include knowledge of functions and their concepts, properties,
graphs, and operations. They focus on linear functions, quadratic functions, exponential
and logarithmic functions, and trigonometric functions, their graphs, and properties.
The prerequisite and succeeding topics in the two intended curricula are almost
completely similar. The exponential and logarithm functions and trigonometric func-
tions are placed in grade 10 in the Chinese curriculum while these functions are covered
in grade 12 within the Ontario curriculum. In the Chinese curriculum, the concept of
exponents and their operations are covered in grade 7, while exponential functions are
taught in grade 10. In the Ontario curriculum, the concept and its operations of
exponents are taught in grade 9 with exponential functions taught in grade 12.

Learning Progression. In this stage of topic arrangement, Ontario curriculum is faster than
the Chinese curriculum, especially in grade 12. Ontario curriculum in grade 9 turns to
formal algebra. In grades 9 – 11, the number of topics arranged is slightly more than that of
Chinese curriculum. But the Ontario curriculum arranges 25 topics in grade 12, i.e. it has
an accelerating topic progression in grade 12.
Curriculum Matters: What We Teach and What Students Gain

Table 4 Chinese mathematics curriculum topics (grades 9 – 12)

Topic Grade:

9 10 11 12

Data management (statistics) and simple probability *

2D coordinate geometry *
Geometry: transformations *
Constructions w/ straightedge and compass *
Congruence and similarity *
Slope and trigonometry *
Quadratic equations *
Quadratic functions and application *
Functions, reciprocal functions In grade 8
Basic set theory and logic *
Functions, exponential, and logarithm functions *
Sequences, arithmetic, and geometric sequences/series *
Angles, radians, trigonometric functions, and identities *
Compound angle formulas (sin (a ± b) etc.) *
Graphs and properties of trigonometric functions *
Solving trigonometric equations *
Polynomial and rational equations In grade 8
2D vectors and operations, dot product *
Law of sine and cosine and application *
Inequality (properties, proof, solving inequality equations) *
Absolute value, solving inequality equations with absolute value *
Line and slopes, equations of line * *
Simple linear programming *
Curves and equations (operations and compositions) *
Equations of circle, relationship between line and circle * *
Ellipse, hyperbola and parabola equations, properties, and graphs *
Lines, planes, and their relations *
2D vectors, operations, dot products, cross products *
Permutation, combination, and binominal theorem *
Probability and statistics (discrete random variables and distributions) * *
Probability and statistics (normal distribution, linear regression) *
Discrete variables expectation and deviation *
Mathematical inductive reasoning *
Limits *
Derivatives *
Derivatives and application (graphs, monotonicity, extremes) *
Complex numbers *
Total topics per grade level 10 9 11 8

*-topic intended in Ontario mathematics curriculum

 Z. Wang, D. McDougall

The topics from arithmetic and function development and connections in grades
1 – 12 can be divided into three stages: constant number and operations, operations
with variables, and functions. The stage of constant number operations refers to the
stage of the curriculum in which the majority of mathematics content focuses on whole
numbers and positive rational numbers and operations, as well as some ideas about
variables and the transition to variables. The stage of operations with variables refers to
the stage of the curriculum, which focus on operations with variables and some simple
functions such as linear functions. The stage of functions refers to the curriculum stage,
which deals with graphs and properties of functions including power functions and
operations (polynomial functions and rational functions), exponential functions, loga-
rithms functions, trigonometric functions, inverse trigonometric functions, and some
piecewise functions. The general distribution of topics from numbers to functions in the
Ontario and Chinese curricula is summarized in Table 5.

Summary, Discussion, and Conclusion

In this section, we first summarize the findings of comparing the two curriculum
patterns between Ontario and China. Then, we discuss the effects of these intended
curriculum design on students’ learning and teachers’ professional development. Fi-
nally, we provide a conclusion for this study.

Summary

The findings provide evidence that, in grades 1 – 12, the topic coverage and overall
topic sequence are similar within the two education systems. Chinese curriculum covers
78 out of 79 topics while Ontario curriculum covers 76 out of 79 topics in 12 grades.
The Ontario government has changed the mathematics curriculum by moving certain
topics such as absolute value, conic sections, and basic set theory and logic to tertiary
level mathematics.
However, the two curriculum patterns arrange the topics in different ways. The
number of topics (topic focus) in each grade, the topic distribution among grades, topic
start grades, and the duration of topics are different. The Ontario curriculum expects

Table 5 The General Distribution of Topics for Transfer Stages from Numbers to Functions

Grade 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Ontario Constant numbers & operations Oper. w/ vari. Functions
Constant number, Trans. fr. cons. to vari. Vari. oper., trans. Trans to func.,
operations to func. func.,graph, Prop
Grade 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
China Constant numbers & operations Oper. w/ vari. Functions
Constant numbers, Trans. fr. cons Vari. oper., trans. Func., graph, Prop.
operations to vari. to func.

oper. operation, vari. variable, trans. transfer, func. function, fr. from, cons. constant, prop. property
Curriculum Matters: What We Teach and What Students Gain

teachers to complete 34 mathematics topics in grades 1 – 8 and 47 mathematics topics

in secondary school (grades 9 – 12). In contrast, the Chinese curriculum has 43 topics
in grades 1 to 8 and 35 topics in grades 9 to 12. The result of these differences in topic
duration is that at end of grade 8, the mathematics content of the Ontario curriculum
lags behind the Chinese curriculum by nearly 2 years.
The Ontario curriculum in grades 9 – 12 includes more topics than the Chinese
curriculum and accelerates the learning progression in grade 12. The Chinese curriculum
evenly develops topics over the course of 12 years. Moreover, in grades 1 – 8, the Ontario
curriculum covers more topics in each grade, but the topic progression is slower and more
repetitive than in the Chinese curriculum. In grades 9 – 11, the Ontario curriculum has
slightly more topics than the Chinese curriculum. However, by the final year of second-
ary school, the Ontario curriculum lists more topics than the Chinese curriculum in the
same grade (25 vs. 8). Furthermore, the two curriculum patterns have different starting
points for many topics, different durations, and topic progression. Ontario students are
exposed most topics later in middle and high school grades than Chinese students.
The number of topics required in each grade is summarized in Table 6. The Ontario
province divides the education system of grades 1 – 12 into two stages grades 1 – 8
(called elementary school) and grades 9 – 12 (called secondary school). Chinese
education system is divided into three stages: grades 1 – 6, grades 7 – 9, and grades
10 – 12. Table 6 shows that Ontario curriculum requires 25 topics in grade 8 and
requires 13 topics in grade 9. That means that when students move to secondary school,
their learning approaches may change dramatically. Similarly, Ontario students learn 13
topics in grade 11 and learn 25 topics in grade 12. Comparing the Ontario curriculum,
Chinese curriculum is relatively arranged so that the number of topics is more balanced.
There is no big leap in the number of topics from one grade to another.

Discussion

This study demonstrates that two curriculum models require teachers to teach a similar
group of core mathematics topics in 12 years, but the Ontario curriculum expects the
teacher to teach at least one third to one half more topics than Chinese curriculum in
each of the grades 1 – 8 and grade 12. BCurricula that emphasize breadth of knowledge
may prevent effective organization of knowledge because there is not enough time to
learn anything in depth^ (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000, p. 49).
The outcome of this comparison study demonstrates the importance and advantages
of studying the quantity of topics that should be taught per year for effective teaching
and learning. If teachers have to teach many topics in an academic year, they have to
shift between topics quickly. This may mean that teachers and students cannot stay in
one topic long enough to make the content go deeper and therefore have deep

Table 6 Number of topics intended for coverage at each grade in Ontario and Chinese curricula

Grade 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Ontario curriculum 13 15 17 21 24 28 27 25 13 10 13 25
Chinese curriculum 5 8 11 11 16 12 14 9 10 9 11 8
 Z. Wang, D. McDougall

understanding. In contrast, if teachers teach fewer topics per year, they can stay on a
topic longer and study the topic in more depth. When teachers shift from one topic to
another frequently, they have to help students recall their prior learning providing less
teaching time for new content of a topic, and then students may not have enough time
to learn the new content nor to practice their newly developing skills.
Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 show the mathematics knowledge structures required as
intended curriculum for teachers and students. The sequence of topics influences
teachers’ teaching approaches and students’ learning outcomes. For example, the
Ontario curriculum requires common factors and common multiples in grade 8 and
places fraction comparison, addition, and subtraction in grade 7. In contrast, Chinese
curriculum requires common factors and common multiples prior to learn fraction
comparison, addition, and subtraction. Ontario teachers may use manipulative tools
to help student understand the operation procedures, while Chinese teachers may guide
students to find common denominators and understand operations. In the process of
learning, students in the two systems develop different perspectives of connections and
hinge points between prime numbers, composite numbers, factors, common factors,
common multiples, unit fractions, and fraction operations.
In the transition from elementary school to secondary school within the Ontario
curriculum, the number of topics in grade 8 and grade 9 differs dramatically. In
elementary school, students learn at a slow pace, with fewer topics and a little depth
in each grade from 1 to 8. However, in grades 9 – 12, students learn at a faster pace,
with a quicker topic progression and in greater depth. In grade 12, students can take
three mathematics courses and learn 25 topics. This creates a high cognitive load for
students because they also need to learn other courses such as physics and chemistry.
On the contrary, Chinese curriculum arranges topics in a much more balanced fashion
and students may consistently develop their knowledge and thinking skills.
If teachers in different countries deliver content in different ways, students will
develop different cognitive structures and thinking styles that have impact on knowl-
edge coding, retention, ways of retrieval, and development. Moreover, the different
intended curriculum design may lead teachers to different directions in their profes-
sional development because they need to make students understanding content based
on student prior knowledge.
Topic progression can influence the learning opportunities and achievement. Ontario
students have less time with the topics used to solve problems than their counterparts in
China and other top performing countries. They have less time to retrieve and reorga-
nize their knowledge structures in the brain than their peers of China. Research has
shown that retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with
concept mapping (Karpicke & Blunt, 2011). Singapore, Korean, and Japanese official
curricula include topics of formal algebra and formulas in grade 8, and they complete
fractions and operations in grade 6 (Cao, 2012). These three countries are three of the
six top-performing A+ countries identified by Schmidt and his colleagues (Schmidt
et al., 2002). Their curriculum topic progression is similar to Chinese curriculum (Cao,
2012). The students in top performing countries have completed more mathematics
topics when they are in grade 8. It is easy for them to make connections and reorganize
their knowledge. A well-stocked and well-organized body of knowledge is easy to
retrieve and retain. This may be an important reason why East Asian students are top
performers in international studies such as TIMSS and PISA.
Curriculum Matters: What We Teach and What Students Gain

In fact, the grades 1 – 8 curricula required in China and some top-performing A+

countries are accelerated whereas curricula are less so in Ontario and some countries
which have similar curriculum. Ma (2005) used the data from the Longitudinal Study
of American Youth and randomly selected about 60 seventh graders from grades 7 – 12
to examine effect whether early acceleration of students into formal algebra at the
beginning of middle school enhanced achievement growth in four mathematics areas:
basic skills, algebra, geometry, and quantitative literacy. The results of multivariate
multilevel analyses showed that low achieving students, who were accelerated into
formal algebra, grew faster than students who were not accelerated. The rates of growth
of accelerated low achieving students were even comparable to those of accelerated
high achieving students. Early acceleration also promoted stability of growth across
mathematics areas regardless student and school characteristics.
According to Kilpatrick (2014), the US and Canadian educational systems have a
close relationship. The Canadian provinces usually adopt a common set of objectives of
NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) for school mathematics
(Kilpatrick, 2014). Some US states’ mathematics curricula depicted in Schmidt and
his colleagues’ research (Schmidt et al., 2002) have lots of in common in design with
Ontario curriculum. Ma’s (2005) data were collected in the time of the state curriculum
of Schmidt’s (2002) research. Hence, it is possible to accelerate topic progression in
intended curriculum.
Curriculum development is closely associated with the tradition of an education
system, the needs of the industrial and commercial circumstances of a local jurisdiction
and a national, culture, philosophy, and the system’s context (Cai & Howson, 2013;
Wang, 1985). The two models of curricula were based on different theories of curric-
ulum design. Ontario’s spiral curriculum was based on Bruner’s (1960) theory of how
to design curriculum. Bruner advocated to Bspiral curriculum.^ The features of a spiral
curriculum include the following: topics are revisited, levels of difficulty increase, new
learning is associated with previous learning, and the competence of student increases
that means Bthe learners’ competence increases with each visit, until the final overall
objectives are achieved^ (Harden & Stamper, 1999, p. 141).
When Chinese scholars developed curriculum, they borrowed ideas from the traditions
of Chinese teaching, and combined theories from China and other countries, especially
Russian scholar Leonid Vladimirovich Zankov’s and Bruner’s perspectives. Leonid
Vladimirovich Zankov advocated teaching topics once, in depth and thoroughly. Hence,
Chinese scholars combined a Blinear/straight and spiral curriculum^ (Wang, 1985). Wang
(1985) explained that the linear/straight arrangement means teaching a topic once and the
spiral arrangement means repeating a topic. He also stated that the Chinese curriculum is a
Blinear/straight plus spiral curriculum,^ which is also called Bblock curriculum.^

Conclusion

This study investigated the topics in the Ontario and China mathematics curriculum.
The categories examined in this study are based on literature developed by Western
scholars. It may have potential limitations that are due to Western perspectives on how
to design intended curriculum.
Nevertheless, the topic coverage, focus (the number of topics required), coherence,
and learning progression are important issues in curriculum design. By reviewing how
 Z. Wang, D. McDougall

79 core mathematics topics are organized in grades 1 – 12, the present study offers
important pattern of topics and practical insights of intended curriculum. Specifically,
acceleration topics in grade 1 – 8 and organization some topics in alternative ways may
create effective effect on students’ achievement and teachers’ professional develop-
ment. With certain limitations, we call upon for mathematics education scholars to
refine and further research on the defined list of topics and terms to study curriculum in
order to increase student learning opportunities.

Acknowledgements We are extremely grateful for Dr. Peter Liljedahl and three anonymous reviewers for
their invaluable comments and suggestions. They have improved the paper in many ways.

References

Alajmi, A. (2012). How do elementary textbooks address fraction? A review of mathematics textbooks in the
USA, Japan, and Kuwait. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79, 239–261.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind experience, and
school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cai, J. (2014). Searching for evidence of curricular effect on the teaching and learning of mathematics: Some
insights from the LieCal project. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26(4), 811–831.
Cai, J., & Howson, A. G. (2013). Toward an international mathematics curriculum. In M. A. Clements, A.
Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & K. S. F. Leung (Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics
education research (pp. 949–978). New York, NY: Springer.
Cai, J., Lo, J. J., & Watanabe, T. (2002). Intended treatments of arithmetic average in U.S. and Asian school
mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 102(8), 391–404.
Cao, Y. (Ed.). (2012). Shisanguo shuxue kecheng biaozhun pingjie [Review official curricula of thirteen
countries]. Beijing, China: Beijing Normal University Publishing Group.
Chinese Ministry of Education. (2011). Quanrishi yiwu jiaoyu shuxue kecheng biaozhun [Mathematics
curriculum standard of compulsory education (2011 version)]. Beijing, China: Beijing Normal
University Press.
Fortus, D., & Krajcik, J. S. (2012). Curriculum coherence and learning progressions. In B. J. Fraser, K. G.
Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 783–798).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Verlag.
Harden, R. M., & Stamper, N. (1999). What is a spiral curriculum? Medical Teacher, 21, 141–143.
Hirsch, C., & Reys, B. (2009). Mathematics curriculum: A vehicle for school improvement. ZDM-The
International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41, 749–761.
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(2), 241–263.
Husen, T. (1967). International study of achievement in mathematics: A comparison of twelve countries,
volume I & II. New York, NY: Wiley.
Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying
with concept mapping. Science, 331, 772–775.
Kilpatrick, J. (2014). Mathematics education in the United States and Canada. In A. Karp & G. Schubring
(Eds.), Handbook on the history of mathematics education (pp. 323–333). New York, NY: Springer.
Lloyd, G. M., Cai, J., & Tarr, J. E. (2017). Research issues in curriculum studies: Evidence-based insights and
future directions. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 824–852).
Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Ma, X. (2005). Early acceleration of students in mathematics: Does it promote growth and stability of growth
in achievement across mathematical areas? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 439–460.
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, Lynch School of
Education, Boston College.
Curriculum Matters: What We Teach and What Students Gain

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). PISA 2015 results (Volume I): Excellence
and equity in education. Paris, France: PISA, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787
/9789264266490-en .
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2005a). The Ontario mathematics curriculum K-8. Available from
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/math18curr.pdf .
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2005b). The Ontario mathematics curriculum 9–10. Available from
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/math910curr.pdf .
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2007). The Ontario mathematics curriculum 11–12. Available from
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/math1112currb.pdf .
Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2012). Curricular coherence and the Common Core State Standards for
mathematics. Educational Researcher, 41(8), 294–308.
Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H. A., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L. S., & Wolfe, R. G.
(2001). Why schools matter: Across-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Schmidt, W. H., Houang, R. T., & Cogan, L. (2002). A coherent curriculum: The case of mathematics.
American Educator, 26(2), 1–18.
Tran, D., Reys, B. J., Teuscher, D., Dingman, S., & Kasmer, L. (2016). Analysis of curriculum standards: An
important research area. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 47(2), 118–133.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wang, C. (1985). Jiaoxue lun gao [Pedagogy]. Beijing, China: People’s Education Press.

View publication stats