ZDM Mathematics Education (2009) 41:349–362
DOI 10.1007/s11858-009-0169-5
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Good mathematics instruction in South Korea
JeongSuk Pang
Accepted: 6 February 2009 / Published online: 27 February 2009

FIZ Karlsruhe 2009
Abstract There have been only a few studies of Korean
mathematics instruction in international contexts. Given
this, this paper describes in detail a sixth grade teacher’s
mathematics instruction in order to investigate closely what
may be counted as high-quality teaching and learning in
Korea. This paper then discusses several key characteristics
of good mathematics instruction along with some back-
ground information on Korean educational practice. This
paper concludes with remarks that good mathematics
instruction may be perceived differently with regard to
underlying social and cultural norms.
Keywords Good mathematics instruction

Implemented curriculum

Reform in mathematics education
Case study

Korean mathematics education
1 Introduction
Mathematics instruction is important because it serves as
the main venue for students to experience school mathe-
matics. Studies of mathematics instruction can illuminate
not only students’ conceptual development, but also the
nature and effects of their participation in the learning
activities through social interactions. Educational leaders
have sought to implement good mathematics instruction at
the classroom level. To this end, diverse aspects of high-
J. Pang (&)
Department of Elementary Education (Mathematics Education),
Korea National University of Education,
San 7, Darak-ri, Gangnae-myeon, Cheongwon-gun,
Chungbuk 363-791, Korea
e-mail: jeongsuk@knue.ac.kr
quality teaching and learning have been articulated along
with the curriculum standards that have been promulgated
for school mathematics (National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics [NCTM] (1991, 2007); Ross, McDougall, &
Hogaboam-Gray, 2003). For instance, Stein and her col-
leagues (2000) emphasize that mathematical tasks form the
basis of students’ opportunities for learning mathematics.
Artzt and Armour-Thomas (2002) add tasks to the learning
environment and discourse, and combine them with a focus
on the teacher’s cognitive processes such as planning,
monitoring, and evaluating.
However, what counts as good mathematics instruction
is not always manifest. East Asian mathematics instruction
has often been characterized not least as teacher-dominated,
content-oriented, examination-driven, and featuring whole-
class teaching, large class sizes, and minimal student
involvement. However, students from Asian countries
consistently achieve high scores in mathematics in inter-
national comparative studies (e.g., TIMSS), even though
these characteristics are considered poor and unfriendly
practices. As a consequence, these characteristics have been
re-examined by some researchers. Leung (2001) has sought
to articulate an East Asian identity in mathematics educa-
tion against the simple dichotomies such as content versus
process, studying hard versus pleasurable learning, and
whole-class teaching versus individualized learning. Huang
and Leung (2004) claimed that the common dichotomy of
‘teacher-centered’ and ‘student-centered’ misrepresents
Chinese classrooms. Similarly, Park and Leung (2005)
demonstrated that behind the apparently procedural teach-
ing and passive learning, the Korean students were actually
engaged in meaningful exploration through classroom
learning activities thoughtfully designed by their teachers.
Teaching is a profoundly entrenched cultural phenom-
enon. In the Standards updated for high-quality teaching of
123
350
mathematics in the U.S., the NCTM (2007) confronted the
challenge by stating, ‘‘professional standards for mathe-
matics teaching should represent values about what
contributes to good practice without prescribing it’’ (p. 17).
Such values are closely connected to cultural values and
paradigms. In fact, the international comparisons reveal
that mathematics instruction reflects the beliefs and
expectations, whether explicit or implicit, that may exist
in each different educational culture (Clarke, Keitel, &
Shimizu, 2006; Stigler & Hiebert, 1999).
This paper explores what counts as good mathematics
instruction in Korean contexts. It first reviews literature
related to good mathematics practice and, in particular,
introduces several studies of Korean mathematics instruc-
tion. This paper then illustrates one specific master
teacher’s mathematics instruction in order to look closely
at the nature of high-quality teaching and learning imple-
mented in an actual classroom. The paper finally discusses
some crucial issues of good Korean mathematics instruc-
tion and background information on Korean educational
practice. Given that teaching practices of Korean class-
rooms have been little studied in international contexts, this
paper is intended to serve as a stepping stone for future
productive discourse within the international research
community.
2 Review of literature
2.1 Perspectives on good mathematics instruction
Although we both as researchers and as teachers have
sought for good mathematics teaching, the views on what
characteristic best exemplifies good teaching must remain
implicit. Krainer (2005) urges us to take the position of
negotiating norms rather than refusing or establishing
norms of good teaching. In this perspective, research on
good teaching is ‘‘about increasing our understanding of
teaching, and about normative assumptions about good
teaching explicit, and also about further developing
teaching.’’ (p. 76, italics in original).
Zemelman, Haniels, and Hyde (2005) listed common
recommendations of national curriculum reports in various
content areas including mathematics. They identified 13
principles under the 3 main clusters of best practice. The
first cluster is about student-centered teaching and learning
in which students experience genuine challenges, and are
actively involved in holistic and authentic ideas. The sec-
ond cluster deals with cognitive and developmental aspects
of instruction in which students construct their knowledge
and reflect on what they have learned. The last is related to
the social and interpersonal aspects of teaching and learn-
ing. For instance, cooperative learning activities are
123
J. Pang
preferred in comparison with competitive and individual-
istic approaches.
With regard to good instruction specifically in mathe-
matics, NCTM (2000) provides us with a vision of high-
quality teaching and learning that all students learn
meaningful mathematical ideas through the intertwined
processes of problem solving, reasoning and proof, com-
munication, connections, and representations. To realize
such a vision, teachers are expected to have extensive
knowledge of students’ mathematical learning as well as
that of mathematics and general pedagogy (NCTM, 2007).
They also need to design worthwhile mathematical tasks
and create a learning environment in which active
engagement in mathematical discourse is the norm. In
addition, teachers should be sensitive to students’ learning
by engaging in ongoing analysis of their teaching practice.
Some researchers draw our attention to hearing teachers’
voices with regard to the issue of effective instruction. For
instance, Wilson, Cooney, and Stinson (2005) explored
nine high school teachers’ perspectives on good mathe-
matics teaching and its development. The teachers
identified the following four characteristics with regard to
good teaching: (a) prerequisite knowledge of mathematics,
(b) promotion of mathematical understanding through
connecting mathematics, visualizing mathematics, assess-
ing students’ understanding, and refraining from telling, (c)
engagement and motivation of students, and (d) effective
management skills. Despite the superficial similarity
between the teachers’ views and recent reform-related
documents, the authors were accurate to find that the
teachers’ perspectives were essentially grounded in a tea-
cher-centered classroom, whereas reform prefers a student-
centered classroom objective.
Taken together, there seems a strong and partisan vision
of high-quality teaching and learning that is more student-
centered and process-oriented. However, this apparent
consensus in principle is not manifest in culturally different
contexts. For example, Cai (2004) reported that US
teachers were lenient in their students’ visual or concrete
representations and solution methods, while Chinese
teachers expected their sixth graders to use more general-
ized strategies and algebraic representations. Andrews and
Hatch (2000) found that English teachers were much more
positive in enriching the classroom with mathematically
challenging materials and in creating an open and coop-
erative environment than Hungarian teachers were.
Different views on effective mathematics teaching can
be revealed in detail when a teacher constructs a lesson.
Fernandez and Cannon (2005) reported substantial differ-
ences in Japanese and US teachers’ lesson-construction
thinking. Japanese teachers were much more concerned
than US colleagues in developing productive dispositions
toward mathematics learning by students’ own discovery
Good mathematics instruction in South Korea
and control. In contrast, US teachers focused more on
teaching specific mathematical content effectively by
increasing their control and directiveness. Moreover, US
teachers expressed satisfaction with their planning of a
lesson, while Japanese teachers reserved their decisions
until they have implemented the lesson.
The studies reviewed above suggest that the perspec-
tives on good mathematics teaching are deeply rooted in
culturally different beliefs and values. As the vigorous
communication between Western and Eastern countries
occur, an attempt is made to adopt the apparently good
mathematics practice from a different cultural tradition.
However, we have witnessed that such an adoption requires
precise analysis on the underlying values of one’s own
tradition as well as those of another’s (Li & Yang, 2007).
2.2 Korean mathematics instruction in international
contexts
Whereas teaching practices in US mathematics classrooms
have been extensively studied through microanalysis of
mathematics instruction by video-recordings, those of
Korean classrooms have been little studied in international
contexts. An exception is a study of Korean mathematics
instruction conducted by Grow-Maienza, Hahn, and Joo
(1999). They observed 20 Korean classrooms in 5 ele-
mentary schools. In comparing Korean mathematics
instruction with other Asian classrooms, the researchers
found some similarities such as the pattern of instruction/
practice/evaluation, the placement of problems in real-
world contexts, the representation of one problem using
several modes, the use of concrete demonstration or
manipulative materials, and the coherence and progression
of the lesson. Nevertheless, the researchers differentiated
instruction from Japanese instruction. Korean instruction
focuses primarily on procedures to solutions of given
problems, whereas Japanese instruction focuses on stu-
dents’ problem solving and explanation per se.
This observation is strongly supported by the more
comprehensive TIMSS study wherein Korean teachers
reported that their most common way of organizing a
mathematics class is to teach the whole class in which
students work together (Kim, Kim, Lew, & Im, 1996;
Mullis, Martin, Beaton, Gonzalez, Kelly, & Smith, 2000).
In comparison with the international average, Korean stu-
dents were very negative on the items that they explain
how they solve a given problem, and that they decide how
to solve a difficult problem for themselves (Park, Jeong,
Kim, Han, & Lee, 2004).
Another empirical study was conducted by Park and
Leung (2005). They observed at least 10 lessons in each of
3 eighth grade mathematics classrooms, and reported a
higher ratio of the number of teacher words to student
351
words compared to those in the Western countries in the
TIMSS 1999 video study (Hiebert, Gallimore, Garnier,
Givvin, Hollingsworth, Jacobs et al., 2003). The lessons
were seen to be focused on the final product (or mathe-
matics content) rather than the process of finding out the
product in conjunction with ample practice of mathematics.
It is reported that Korean lessons showed a much lower
level of public oral interactivity than the US and Australian
counterparts (Clark & Hua, 2008). Against this apparently
poor practice, however, Park and Leung (2005) illustrate
that a fine-grained analysis on each lesson clearly shows
that the teachers commonly led students to meaningfully
understand the concept to be covered through a lot of
variations in concepts and by practicing exercises.
Whereas the two studies on Korean mathematics
teaching described above were based on typical class-
rooms, Kirshner and his Korean colleagues (1998)
observed two specific second-grade classes in which the
teachers exceptionally attempted to elicit students’ ideas
and active participation. Whereas the two classes were
similar with regard to focusing on finding different solution
methods to the given problem of three-digit addition and
subtraction without carrying/borrowing, the two classes
were very different with regard to what made a solution
different from previous ones.
In one class, the teacher welcomed all solutions offered
by students as being different and checked whether their
‘‘different’’ solution methods produced the same right
answer. Moreover, students’ various ideas were subsumed
under the teacher’s own summation of a ‘‘convenient’’
subtraction algorithm. In the other class, the teacher was
quite selective in what she would accept as a different
solution. At first, she accepted students’ idea that using
different materials made different solution methods.
However, as students became sophisticated enough to
come up with alternative interpretations beyond superficial
differences, she rejected a student’s method of using a
similar kind of material that had been offered. Moreover,
she led her students to exploit crucial differences between
coins and paper titles to highlight the meaning of the
‘‘different’’ as the mathematically different. In this way, the
two classes showed their unequal success in implementing
student-centered instruction.
This pioneer work was based on low-key but significant
curricular changes in Korea wherein many characteristics
of student-centered teaching methods are consistently rec-
ommended (Ministry of Education, 1997). The recent
seventh national curriculum emphasizes providing students
with opportunities to study mathematics based on their
individual learning capacity, aptitude, and interest. Spe-
cifically, the curriculum urges a teacher to provide students
with an enriching environment in which the understanding
of fundamental mathematical concepts, logical thinking,
123
352
problem solving, and students’ interest and confidence in
mathematics are valued. This call is consistently recom-
mended in the recently revised curriculum in which
mathematical communication and positive dispositions
toward mathematics are explicitly highlighted (Ministry of
Education and Human Resources Development [MEHRD],
2007).
However, implementing student-centered teaching
practices is not an easy task for a teacher. For instance,
Pang (2005) illustrates the difficulties one Korean teacher
experienced in transforming her teacher-oriented prac-
tices toward student-centered approaches. The teacher
was quite successful in establishing affordable classroom
participation structure, eliciting students’ ideas and con-
tributions, and focusing on mathematically significant
ideas. Despite these promising successes, for instance,
the teacher experienced some difficulties when students
did not come up with a specific idea that she thought
was important. The teacher also frequently struggled
with how to balance the encouragement of students’
conceptual development and the teaching of efficient
procedures such as a standard algorithm. After listening
to students’ various solution methods, she often ended
her lessons by formulating the most efficient one and
encouraged the students to use it in solving problems for
practice.
This study reveals that the simple dichotomy between
student-centered and teacher-centered pedagogy obscures
the variety of high-quality mathematics instruction possi-
bilities. The teacher described above can be seen as
student-centered at one level, specifically in that the
classroom participation characteristics were very different
from the norms typified in a Korean teacher-oriented
mathematics class. However, the detailed analysis of the
class illustrated that it displayed teacher-centered instruc-
tion at another level, because the ultimate focus of
mathematical activity was on the teacher’s methods.
2.3 Good mathematics instruction in Korea
Specific attention to good mathematics teaching and
learning has recently been drawn in Korea in order to
improve the quality of mathematics education. The Korea
Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation (KICE) announced
a detailed criteria of assessing mathematics instruction
under four main categories: professional knowledge,
planning, implementation, and professionalism (Im &
Choe, 2006). Specifically, two aspects are articulated with
regard to the implementation of a lesson. One is the
learning environment and the other is actual teaching
practice. The aspect of the learning environment includes
the establishment and maintenance of a physical environ-
ment for effective instruction, establishment of learning
123
J. Pang
culture of mathematics, mutual respect and interaction
between the teacher and students, and management of
students by consistent norms and procedures. The aspect of
actual teaching practice includes examination of students’
prior knowledge, motivational strategies adequate to the
contents to be covered, diverse and adequate modes of
instruction in terms of contents and students, encourage-
ment of students’ active participation, effective use of
small-group and whole-class formats, encouragement of
students’ confidence and ability, diverse and effective
questioning, flexible improvisation against unexpected
events, multiple assessment strategies, and timely
feedback.
The criteria by KICE cover all sorts of aspects related to
instruction from a teacher’s knowledge to her reflection on
teaching practice and professional development. This may
imply that good mathematics instruction is difficult to
achieve and needs to be developed through the teacher’s
career-long effort. However, such comprehensive criteria
can be regarded as idealistic when a lesson needs to be
evaluated. In this respect, the educational offices of each
province which organizes instruction-research contests for
teachers, employs more articulate and fragmentary ele-
ments with the concentration on the teacher’s behavior.
(Table 1) shows what criteria are actually used at the ele-
mentary school level in order to select good mathematics
instruction (Daejeon Metropolitan Office of Education,
2008).
These criteria may convey a general image of good
mathematics instruction in Korea. However, it is difficult to
grasp in what ways such aspects are actually implemented
in the classroom. An exceptional study conducted by Choe
(2002) was a qualitative case study on good mathematics
teaching in middle schools. Defining good mathematics
teaching as ‘‘an interactive and meaningful class,’’ she
selected six specific cases of good mathematics instruction
and solicited the common characteristics of such cases in
the following five dimensions. With regard to the curric-
ulum and mathematics contents, the teachers re-constructed
textbooks on the basis of their students’ abilities and local
conditions. With regard to instructional methods, multiple
techniques were implemented such as differentiated
approaches tailored to students’ individual differences,
motivation-evoking methods in terms of students’ real-life
contexts, and appropriate use of information and commu-
nication technology. With regard to the understanding of
students, the teachers attempted to improve students’
mathematical attitudes by being sensitive to their aptitudes
and interests, and establishing good relations with their
students. With regard to assessment, the teachers moni-
tored students’ progress during their instruction and
employed performance assessment. Finally, with regard to
professional development, the teachers were actively
Good mathematics instruction in South Korea
Table 1 Criteria of instruction-
Item
research contests
Lesson design
Learning environment
Learning objective
Research topic
Student activities
Teaching techniques
Summary of learning
Attainment of a goal
Questioning
Instructional materials
Total
involved in self-directed re-training courses as well as
multiple professional activities among teachers.
Although this case study illustrates concrete elements of
good mathematics instruction, it has limitations. For
instance, the cases were selected mainly because they can
be alternatives to pending problems in Korean mathematic
education. For this reason, some cases are rather idiosyn-
cratic such as a lesson using mind-map in combination with
meta-cognitive strategies or a lesson tailored to students’
individual differences by the use of Information and
Communication Technology. The study was also based on
very limited observation of each classroom, which may not
indicate whether the same characteristics would arise when
the teachers taught different topics.
Taken together, there have been a few studies in inter-
national contexts by which we can imagine what a Korean
mathematics classroom would look like. However, it is
difficult to articulate what may be perceived as a good
mathematics lesson beyond curricular emphasis or general
criteria stated by educational offices or related institutes.
Evidence of good instruction is most likely to be found in
teaching, particularly in how the teacher introduces a new
topic, orchestrates classroom discourse, and responds to
students’ answers. For this reason, it seems necessary to
look at good mathematics instruction implemented in the
353
Evaluation of lesson Score
• Creativity and appropriateness of lesson design 10
• Appropriate reconstruction of mathematics contents
• Effective use of teaching and learning theory
• Appropriate motivational strategies 5
• Collaborative effort for solving a given task
• Appropriateness of contents, method, and timing 10
• Students’ perception and understanding of learning objectives
• Efforts to solve research questions 5
• Connections to learning activities
• Students’ active learning activities 20
• Students’ understanding of contents and their participation
• Students’ training of basic learning attitude
• Consideration of students’ individual difference and equity 20
• Accuracy of contents and promotion of creativity and thinking
• Effective use of ICT and its connection to contents
• Appropriate writing and summary of main contents 10
• Extension and synthesis of students’ thinking
• The attainment of instructional goals 5
• Students’ self-assessment
• Adequate and diverse levels of questioning 10
• High-quality questioning and timely responses
• Adequate selection of instructional materials 5
• Timely use of instructional materials
100
classroom and to identify some characteristics of such
instruction.
3 Good mathematics instruction implemented
in the classroom
This section describes good mathematics instruction
implemented in a sixth grade classroom in order to illus-
trate what may be counted as high-quality teaching in
Korea. The data used in this paper are from a 1-year project
of understanding the culture of elementary mathematics
classrooms in transition. The project is an exploratory,
qualitative, comparative case study (Yin, 2002) using
constant comparative analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) for
which the primary data sources are classroom video
recording and transcripts.
3.1 Method
Making a proper selection of cases is one of the most
important factors in producing a satisfactory qualitative case
study (Stake, 1998). As a kind of purposeful sampling, the
classroom teaching practices of 15 teachers eager to align
their mathematics instruction with the recommendations of
123
354
the seventh national curriculum were preliminarily observed
and analyzed. An open-ended interview with each teacher
was conducted to investigate his or her beliefs on mathe-
matics and its teaching.
Five teachers from different schools were selected that
aspired to student-centered instruction. Two mathematics
lessons per month by each of the teachers throughout the
year were videotaped and transcribed. Individual inter-
views with the teachers were taken three times to trace
their construction of teaching approaches. Additional data
included videotaped inquiry group meetings in which the
participant teachers met once per month and had lots of
opportunities to analyze their own videotaped lessons as
well as others.
The topics of videotaped lessons were chosen variously
by each teacher because of two reasons. Firstly, if a
specific topic were required, the participant teachers
might have an impression that their instruction would be
compared and contrasted in the subsequent inquiry group
meetings. Secondly, the project attempted to analyze the
characteristics of each teacher’s common approaches
throughout the year regardless of content areas in the
process of changing their instruction towards student-
centeredness.
The classroom data were analyzed individually and
then comparatively in terms of the characteristics of
mathematical discourse and activity (Yackel & Cobb,
1996). Interview data were included in the analyses
whether they provided useful background information in
relation to classroom teaching practices. Because the case
study should be based on the understanding of the case
itself before addressing an issue or developing a theory
(Stake, 1998), teaching practices were very carefully
scrutinized in a bottom-up fashion. The central feature of
these analyses is to compare and to contrast preliminary
inferences with new incidents in subsequent data in order
to determine if the initial conjectures are sustained
throughout the data set.
The five classrooms displayed similar characteristics
that were compatible with current recommendations.
However, the content and qualities of the teaching prac-
tices were somewhat different in the extent to which
students’ ideas and mathematical thinking were consis-
tently valued as the center of classroom discourse and
activity throughout the year. Such comparison and contrast
helped identify the most successful sixth grade teacher, Ms.
K. In addition, the other participant teachers assessed Ms.
K’s teaching practice as the most powerful and influential
both in the inquiry group meetings and in their individual
interviews.
Ms. K had about 15 years of teaching experience and
had a master’s degree in mathematics education. She was
active in participating in various seminars on mathematics
123
J. Pang
education and was enthusiastic to learn new things related
to mathematics teaching and learning. The following sec-
tion introduces the overall characteristics of Ms. K’s
teaching practice.
3.2 Characteristics of good mathematics instruction
3.2.1 Lesson flow and detailed guidance
Each of Ms. K’s lessons consisted of a brief review of the
previous lesson, her introduction of new mathematical
activities or tasks, students’ individual or small-group
activities, and a whole-class discussion and summary. This
structure was consistent regardless of the content areas to
be covered. A noticeable remark is that Ms. K always
encouraged students to present and explain what they had
discovered during the whole-class discussion phase. As
such, students’ contributions constituted the main idea of
the discussion. This led students to be actively engaged in
the individual or small-group activities.
A cautionary note is that Ms. K did not allow students
to be heavily involved in ‘‘free’’ exploration activities by
themselves. Instead, she tended to provide a detailed
guidance as to the main task before students’ own
activities. For instance, Ms. K emphasized that students
should predict what kind of shape appears when a semi-
circular-shaped (or rectangular- or right triangular-shaped)
piece of paper is stuck to a chopstick and spun in a circle
and what are the common characteristics of such figures
by rotation, before jumping into direct experiment.
Instead of manipulating the given figures with an empty
mind, students were encouraged to imagine first and to
confirm whether their prediction was correct. Only then,
does testing one’s own conjecture with physical materials
or simulations provide valuable feedback for understand-
ing relationships.
In this way, Ms. K led students to consider what
mathematical thinking was called for, instead of simple
completion of the given task. This characteristic is spe-
cifically important in the teaching of mathematics. Current
mathematics textbooks in Korea encourage students to
actively participate in various mathematical activities.
Emphasis on mathematical activities is closely related to
the use of concrete materials at an elementary school level.
Given this, textbooks include various materials illustrating
the mathematical relationship that students are supposed to
understand. Textbooks then intend to provide an intellec-
tual challenge and stimulate discussion. However, such an
intention often results in ‘‘doing’’ activities without nec-
essarily ‘‘thinking about’’ mathematics (Pang, 2002).
Owing to Ms. K’s detailed guidance on activities, students
were actively involved in mathematical thinking while
actually doing mathematics.
Good mathematics instruction in South Korea
3.2.2 Reconstruction of textbooks
Ms. K was very skillful in re-constructing the learning
sequence or the activities in the textbook on the basis of
mathematical significance. For instance, the teacher
added a full lesson emphasizing the meaning of division
of fractions before exposing students to many activities
to be geared at finding the common algorithm for the
division and practicing it with many exercises. In an
interview, Ms. K said that throughout her teaching career
she saw many students familiar with algorithm without a
deep understanding of the algorithm. Specifically, with
regard to the division of fractions, Ms. K was very
concerned that students can calculate but do not under-
stand the meaning of the calculation. Such a concern
made her add one lesson focused on the meaning of
fraction division, reducing one lesson devoted to the
application of an algorithm to the various types of
fraction divisions.
Another noticeable case occurred when Ms. K taught a
fundamental idea of permutations. Given that the textbook
deals only with permutation whereas its concomitant
workbook deals with combination, the teacher asked stu-
dents to compare the case of electing two representatives
and that of electing a president and a vice-president out of
three candidates.
Ms. K carefully orchestrated the path of classroom
discourse towards the mathematical distinction. After
solving the problem of electing two representatives and
one president with a vice-president out of three people,
the students in Ms. K’s class solved a similar problem
but from five people. They then discussed when to
consider the order of an arrangement of objects, and
when not to do so. When asked to explain what they had
discovered by solving the two problems, students came
up with the idea that the number of permutations divided
by 2 is the number of combinations, that is to say,
ð32Þ ð54Þ
2 ¼ 3 and 2 ¼ 10, respectively. With the excite-
ment of this emerging idea, Ms. K even encouraged
students to explore whether this idea would work for
the case of electing other numbers of people as
homework.
Educational leaders in Korea have recently attempted
to provide for some degree of autonomy at a local
school level. However, the curricular documents such as
textbooks are very influential, leaning to directive,
coherent, and rather uniform changes. This is especially
true for elementary mathematics education, because
Korea has only one kind of elementary mathematics
textbooks authorized by the MEHRD. Ms. K’s recon-
struction of textbooks reveals her career-long sensitivity
to students’ strengths and weaknesses as well as math-
ematical sense.
355
3.2.3 Discourse focused on mathematical thinking
As implied, mathematical thinking was consistently
emphasized in Ms. K’s class. Simply knowing the answer
or solving a given problem was not enough. Whole-class
discussion was the most important phase in Ms. K’s class
in providing students with the opportunity to develop
conceptual basis of the arithmetic being studied. For
example, students had to figure out how to complete a
problem by dividing a mixed fraction by a decimal. Such a
division can be approached both by rewriting the fraction
as the decimal and by
rewriting the decimal as the fraction.
After computing 1 12  0:24 in both ways, students were
asked to determine which method would be more conve-
nient and explain why they thought so. Note that the
quotient here is a terminating decimal. Students preferred
rewriting the decimal as the fraction to rewriting the
fraction as the decimal on the excuse of convenience.
However, Ms. K re-directed the path of classroom
discourse to explore that either method would be mathe-
matically accurate and produce
the same answer. Ms. K
then asked students to solve 1 35  0:7 in both ways, where
the quotient is a repeating decimal. Ms. K asked four stu-
dents to present their solution methods on the board in
front. Two of them solved it by rewriting the fraction as the
decimal (e.g., 1.670.7 = 2.28571…), whereas the others
solved

it
by rewriting

the decimal as the fraction (e.g.,
8 7 2
5  10 ¼ 2 7 ). Ms. K then initiated the classroom
discourse to explore what would be the difference between
the two problems, as illustrated by Episode 1.
Episode 1: comparison of two problems in the form of
(fraction) 7 (decimal)


Ms. K: What
is different between 1 12  0:24 and
1 35  0:7?
S: The quotient in the second is a non-terminating
decimal.
S: (decimal) 7 (decimal) and (fraction) 7 (fraction)
produced the same answer for the first problem, but
those didn’t for the second.
Ms. K: A-ha! You discovered something important. In
the first problem, the answer was the same as 12
whether or not you rewrote the decimal as the
fraction, or vice versa. In the second problem,
however, (decimal) 7 (decimal) produces
2.28571…, seems to keep going, whereas

(frac-
tion) 7 (fraction) produces 2 27 . The result
seems to be different. What do you think about
it? These two numbers are same or different?
Ss: They are the same.
Ms. K: That’s right. Then discuss in your groups which
method would be convenient in this situation (after
students’ group discussion). Who will present?
123
356
S: Rewriting the decimal as the fraction is more accurate
and convenient than rewriting the fraction as the
decimal.
Ms. K: Wait! You said, ‘‘It’s accurate and convenient.’’
Go ahead!
S: If you rewrite as the decimal, it is not accurate and
difficult to compute because the quotient keeps going
without an end.
Ms. K: You explored very well. Let’s give her a hand. Do
you all agree?
S: Although you may have to divide again and again for
the (decimal) 7 (decimal), you can write the answer
concisely, as long as you round it. So, (decimal) 7
(decimal) would be okay to me.
Ms. K: A-ha! It will be no problem if we say, for
example, find the answer in the hundredth place
by rounding.
In comparing the case of converting a decimal to a
fraction with that of converting a fraction to a decimal in
different contexts, students learn to evaluate their own
thinking and develop mathematical reasoning skills by
which they decide which calculation method is more con-
venient or accurate in a given context. Simply completing
the calculation was not regarded to be sufficient in this
activity. As Ms. K consistently posed questions that further
challenge and extended students’ activity or mathematical
thinking after eliciting it, their ideas and contributions
constituted the focus of classroom practice. Students were
often encouraged to compare and contrast multiple solution
approaches by the norm of mathematical convenience or
easiness (Yackel & Cobb, 1996). In this way, students
begin to see that certain methods had mathematically sig-
nificant advantages over others.
3.2.4 Mathematical concepts based on students’ activity
Mathematical concepts or principles were introduced by
students’ mathematical activity rather than by the teacher.
Generally speaking, a mathematical concept is introduced
by a corner insert of ‘‘let’s define’’ in the textbook, and
explained by the teacher. It is a sharp contrast that Ms. K
did not explain such a definition as it is in the textbook. She
rather encouraged students to define mathematical concepts
or principles on the basis of classroom activities. Simply
describing or memorizing the definition written in the
textbook was not accepted as legitimate in this classroom.
For instance, with regard to the lesson on the ratio of the
circumferences and the diameters of various circular
objects, Ms. K did not hurry to emphasize the formula that
the circumference of a circle divided by its diameter is
about 3.14. She, instead, pushed students to explain and
justify what they discovered through the measuring
123
J. Pang
activity, and filtered their multiple ideas to pursue mathe-
matically significant ones. In particular, Ms. K posed
questions by which students had to identify the variants and
invariants as the sizes of the circles vary. This exploration
was a new learning experience to the students who were
familiar with traditional teacher-centered teaching prac-
tices. In fact, the students in Ms. K’s class revealed their
excitement to this new experience in their mathematics
journal as follows:
I thought that I knew the circumference and the ratio
of circumference to diameter, because I learned them
a little bit in the private academic institute in
advance. But today’s lesson revealed that I didn’t
understand the concept. There were many things I
didn’t know before. Thanks to the lesson, I think that
I know the concept exactly. Anyway, finding the
circumference and the ratio of it to the diameter was
more fun than I had expected.
3.2.5 Emphasis on important contents among multiple
solution methods
Ms. K encouraged students to find different solution
methods and/or representations for a given problem. In this
way, students had many opportunities to explore the
meaning behind algorithms and to connect visual repre-
sentations with numerical equations. For instance, in the
lesson on the proportional distribution of continued ratio,
Ms. K facilitated students in solving the following problem
in many ways: there were 18 candies and 3 friends (i.e.,
Dahyun, Bada, and Hiyeong) who wanted to share them in
the continued ratio of 3:2:1. How many candies does each
of them get? The students came up with different solution
methods or representations. A student shared his method in
which he used concrete materials to distribute the candies
to the three persons: he gave Dahyun 3 candies, Bada 2
candies, and Hiyeong 1 candy, followed by the same pro-
cess twice more.
As Ms. K asked for different solution methods, three
more students shared their answers on the board. With Ms.
K’s direction, the students had to show their representa-
tions first and then by numerical expressions (see Fig. 1). A
student employed the same idea of distributing concrete
materials but used a different representation. Another stu-
dent proposed to add the ratios and then divided the total
number of candies by the sum only to get 3. She then
multiplied the 3 by each of the ratios; Ms. K confirmed that
the student used the property of continued ratio studied in
the previous lessons: you can multiply or divide each term
of continued ratio by the same number except 0. The third
student displayed a typical method introduced in the
textbook.
Good mathematics instruction in South Korea 357

Fig. 1 Students’ various

Representation & Explanation Numerical Expression
solution methods

Dahyun : Bada : Hiyeong = 3:2:1

“As there are 18 candies, I drew 18 cells. As
Dahyun = 3 x 3 = 9
Dahyun vs. Bada vs. Hiyeong = 3:2:1, I
Bada = 2 x 3 = 6
drew a diagonal in each of the first 3 cells
Hiyeong = 1 x 3 = 3
for Dahyun, colored in each of the next 2
cells for Bada, and leave 1 cell for Hiyeong.
Dahyun : Bada : Hiyeong = 9:6:3
Repeating this process twice more produced
9 candies for Dahyun, 6 for Bada, and 3 for
Hiyeong .”
Dahyun : Bada : Hiyeong = 3:2:1
18 (3+2+1)=3
Dahyun = 3x3=9
“As there are 18 candies, I first drew 18 cells.
Bada = 2 x 3=6
As Dahyun vs. Bada vs. Hiyeong = 3:2:1, I
Hiyeong =1x3=3
added the ratios, 3+2+1=6, and then divided
18 [by 6] to get 3. I multiplied 3 times each
Dahyun : Bada : Hiyeong = 9:6:3
of ratios and resulted in 9 for Dahyun, 6 for
Bada, and 3 for Hiyeong .”

Dahyun:

Bada :

Hiyeong:

In this way, Ms. K focused on finding multiple solution Episode 2: meaning on how to distribute a continued
methods and/or representations to a given problem. The ratio proportionally
topic can be easily taught by introducing the algorithmic
S: Out of 18 cells, I thought this one (cell) as 1 candy. I
method on how to distribute the continued ratio. However,
gave Dahyun 9 candies because she has 36 of the 18.
Ms. K elicited students’ multiple ideas from direct distri-
Ms. K: Why did you give her 36 of the 18?
bution to traditional algorithm. She supported students’
S: Because the value of the ratio Dahyun has is 3 out of 6, the
contributions to the discussion by providing praise and
total ratio, I gave her 36, and so she has 9 cells. Similarly, I
encouragement.
gave Bada 6 cells because she has 26 of the 18 cells. I gave
The important fact is that it is a departure from the
Hihyeong 3 (cells) because she has 16 of the 18. Therefore,
teacher’s strategy of using gradation of praise to signal the
Dahyun has 9, Bada has 6, and Hiyeong has 3.
greater or lesser mathematical interest of a solution. When
Ms. K: Um. Why did you see the whole as 6? I wonder
a mathematically powerful or important content was pre-
how you come up with 6 and why you divided the
sented, Ms. K re-stated in detail or insisted on clear
whole, 18 cells, by 6. Could you explain to the
explanation and justification for the presenter, so that the
class?
whole class examined the crucial contents. For instance,
S: Dahyun, Bada, and Hiyeong have the ratio of 3, 2, and
when the third student presented the algorithmic method,
1, respectively. So, I added the ratios, 3 ? 2 ? 1 = 6.
Ms. K probed mathematical meaning behind the algorithm
I regarded the whole as 6 and then put each ratio in the
by asking so called ‘‘why-questions,’’ as illustrated in
numerator only to have 36, 26, and 16.
Episode 2.

123
358
In an interview, Ms. K worried that students were able to
solve the problem by calculation, but not necessarily based
on the understanding of such computation. This is the main
reason why she asked students to approach the given
problem in many different solution methods and/or repre-
sentations. For this lesson, some students might already
know the algorithm of how to distribute the proportionality
of continued ratios, partly because they learned it in a
private academic institute in advance. In fact, it is not clear
in the third representation of Fig. 1 whether the student
divided the whole by 6 instead of 18 and then distributed it
as 3, 2, and 1, or if she first found the answer by algorithm
and then simply represented it in the picture. Ms. K’s
intention was to emphasize the former, which was mathe-
matically different from the previous contributions by other
students. This made her put an additional mark for each 3
cells to represent 1=6 of the whole, after the presenting
student explained the picture and the numeral expression.
In this way, Ms. K attended not only to the social practices
of the classroom, but also to students’ conceptual devel-
opment within those social practices.
4 Discussion
This paper has sought to explore what counts as good
mathematics instruction in Korea. Given the declaratory
description of effective teaching in the literature and con-
comitant vague image of it, this paper attempted to identify
key characteristics for good mathematics practice in the act
of teaching itself, in particular, through considerable
exploration rather than by snap-shot observation. This
section describes some reflection on a ‘‘Korean version’’ of
good mathematics teaching and its related issues for
elaboration.
4.1 Emphasis on mathematical contents
Despite the complexity of teaching and learning, a salient
feature of Ms. K’s classroom is the emphasis on the con-
tents that is related to the degree by which the main
mathematics topics are taught in a meaningful way. Simply
speaking, the main repeating factor of good teaching
emphasized in the literature is student-centeredness, while
the most of the key elements in this study seems to be
placed on mathematics content.
The general classroom flow and teaching strategies of
the Ms. K’s classroom were geared to the meaningful
presentation of the topics to be taught. For instance, the
teacher provided a detailed guidance as to the main task so
that students were involved in ‘‘mathematical’’ activities
rather than in free exploration for themselves. Among
many solution methods and representations, the teacher did
123
J. Pang
not lose her directing role to the mathematically important
concepts or principles. The keen concern for mathematical
contents was consistent and manifest.
Such content-oriented aspects of good mathematics
teaching practices are not unexpected. The teacher prepa-
ration program in Korea emphasizes mathematically sound
knowledge. For instance, Smith (1994) regards the heart of
Korean elementary teacher education to be a strong disci-
plinary focus: ‘‘Unlike American teachers colleges, where
the major for future elementary teachers invariably is
‘elementary education,’ the colleges in Korea want their
students to study in depth a specific field or discipline that is
related to elementary education’’ (p. 34). This is supported
by recent studies that show East Asian teachers including
Korean teachers have a strong foundation in mathematics
content knowledge (Leung & Park, 2002; Li, Ma, & Pang,
2008; Ma, 1999). For the teaching of mathematics, knowing
the subject well is of foremost importance. It has been
emphasized in Korea that without a solid knowledge of
mathematics, the teacher will be limited and unable to be an
expert in pedagogy. In fact, Kwon and Pang (in preparation)
found that elementary school teachers designated the con-
struction of curriculum with selection of contents as the
most important factor of good mathematics instruction,
which was preferred to teaching and learning, classroom
environment and atmosphere, and assessment.
4.2 Consideration of students’ knowledge and ability
Another salient theme in Ms. K’s classroom was concern
for students that is connected to the degree by which
instruction considers students’ prior knowledge, interests,
learning abilities, attitudes, participation, etc. An example
was that Ms. K designed a full lesson dealing with the
meaning of fraction divisions because she knew well that
many students could solve problems of fraction divisions,
not necessarily understanding the meaning behind such
computation. Another instance was that the teacher
encouraged students to define a mathematical concept or
principle rather than resorting to her own direct presenta-
tion. This teaching strategy often turned out students’
interest and excitement toward mathematics. The last evi-
dence of the teacher’s concern for students was the
emphasis on multiple solution methods and representa-
tions. As Ms. K elicited different solution methods and
accepted them as legitimate, students were able to solve a
given problem and contribute to classroom discourse
regardless of their different learning abilities.
A cautionary note is that the consideration of students’
knowledge and ability seems not an end in itself. The
analysis of Ms. K’s classroom episodes throughout the year
seems to reveal that the teacher wanted to foster students’
participation and attention for the purpose of boosting their
Good mathematics instruction in South Korea
mathematics learning. This conjecture is supported by
Kwon and Pang (in preparation) finding that elementary
school teachers agreed most positively on the items which
dealt with both students’ dispositions and mathematical
contents. For instance, the top two positive responses
chosen by teachers as characteristics of a good lesson were
the reconstruction of curriculum tailored to students’ dif-
ferent learning abilities, and the selection of topics in
consultation with students’ individual differences. This
aspect is different from Japanese teaching in which the
development of mathematical dispositions is considered as
a main goal of a lesson (Fernandez & Cannon, 2005).
4.3 Reflection on multiple solution methods and
connections
The emphasis on multiple approaches and connections
among them seems less obvious than the two features
described above. However, it needs to be highlighted in that
such an emphasis can be a signifier differentiating a more
favorable mathematics instruction from less favorable one.
Since problem solving was emphasized in school
mathematics in Korea about two decades ago, a teacher has
been encouraged to elicit different solution methods. More
recently, the process of doing mathematics has drawn great
attention in Korea, partly because of the influence of
Western mathematics education. In fact, mathematics as
problem solving, reasoning, and communication has been a
new trend in the recent national curriculum (MEHRD,
2007). Students may be engaged in such processes only
when they can be enculturated in the particular classroom
culture where specific mathematical ways of knowing,
valuing, and arguing are emphasized. For this reason,
finding multiple solution methods to a given problem
became a general social norm in the classroom that aspired
to implement new curricular recommendations (Kirshner
et al., 1998; Pang, 2005). No longer is the simple emphasis
on various solution methods sufficient.
Ms. K in this study was consistent in connecting
numerical expressions with visual representations. As the
connections were rather vague, Ms. K attempted to make
them explicit through persistent questioning as illustrated
in Episode 2. Ms. K also orchestrated classroom discourse
to compare and contrast different solution methods on the
basis of mathematical significance. Within such discourse,
students had an opportunity not only to make sense of
various solution strategies different from one’s own but
also to determine their adequacy against a given context as
illustrated in Episode 1.
To be clear, students need to compare and contrast
different solution methods (Ministry of Education and
Human Resources Development 2007; National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics 2007). However, this often
359
happened by the teacher’s own summary at the end of the
lesson or her selection of the most efficient method (Pang,
2005). In this respect, Ms. K’s explicit request and coor-
dination for the comparison between solution methods or
the connection between them can be a critical element for
good mathematics teaching.
4.4 Good textbooks and teacher’s reconstruction
The role of instructional materials needs to be discussed in
identifying good mathematics teaching in Korea. Ms. K’s
teaching practice is based on mathematics textbooks. In
fact, the development of mathematics textbooks and their
related resources such as students’ workbooks and teach-
ers’ manuals is a fundamental element to activate good
practice. As Korea has the national mathematics curricu-
lum and the development of all series of mathematics
textbooks is carefully scrutinized and approved by the
government in a systematic manner, such documents are
very influential (Pang, 2008). The whole community of
mathematics education makes every effort to design high-
quality textbooks in order to initiate excellent instruction.
In fact, Korean elementary mathematics textbooks with
teachers’ manuals were translated in English and have been
used for teacher education in the US (Grow-Maienza, Beal,
& Randolph, 2003).
Recently, the government emphasizes teacher autonomy
in implementing the curriculum, pointing out that curric-
ulum materials including textbooks are resources that
teachers use to achieve their personal instructional goals
and priorities. In other words, teachers are expected to
improvise in teaching as long as they address the required
content of the curriculum for their grade. It seems common,
however, that teachers are very concerned about going
through all the activities and problems in the textbook.
They often faithfully follow the sequence of activities in
the textbook, not necessarily recognizing the interrelations
among them (Pang, 2002). In this respect, Ms. K’s skillful
reconstruction of textbooks both for contents and for stu-
dents can be highlighted as a characteristic of good
mathematics teaching.
4.5 Teacher’s commitment to good instruction
The teacher’s own willingness and effort to develop good
mathematics instruction becomes a major issue when the
spotlight is turned away from contextual factors and
focused on the teacher. When asked to identify what would
be characteristics of a good teacher, Ms. K first mentioned
preparedness by thorough study on the content and students.
In addition, Ms. K insisted that she needs to put more effort
into her study on the mathematics to be taught, whenever
she had an opportunity to reflect on her teaching practice.
123
360
In order to discuss the teacher factor to support good
mathematics teaching, overall description of teacher
recruitment and employment in Korea seems informative.
Traditionally, the teaching profession has been regarded as
an honorable job and thus a teacher is highly respected in
Korea. In comparison with other jobs, teaching is popular
partly because of its security and stability. Despite the large
class size, other occupational conditions of Korean teachers
such as teaching hours and annual salary increase are
favorable in comparison with US teachers (OECD, 2007).
Due to the popularity of the teaching profession, only
outstanding students in terms of their high school records
and college entrance exams may enter teacher education
programs. They can obtain a teaching certificate as long as
they successfully completed the required program of study
at university. In order to be a teacher in a public school, the
students must take the National Teacher Employment Test
(NTET). The NTET requires prospective teachers to have
deep knowledge of pure mathematics, a profound under-
standing of school mathematics, and a competent
performance of teaching mathematics. In fact, the impor-
tance of skillful teaching has been recently emphasized so
that the final process of NTET requires applicants to
develop a full lesson plan on a given topic and to simulate
the lesson concisely; the test is very competitive. For
instance, the rate of being employed as a mathematics
teacher in Seoul was 1–28.7 for 2009 (Seoul Metropolitan
Office of Education, 2008). Given this competitive process
of being a teacher, the overall quality of teachers is high.
Once employed, teachers are automatically tenured. To
be clear, educational offices in each province offer various
professional development courses for in-service teachers.
The offices also organize instruction-research contests
which promote participant teachers’ ongoing commitment
towards good mathematics instruction throughout the year
rather than through a single-use performance. As a new
trend, this year a total of 172 chief teachers were appointed
by the government and have been playing a leading role in
promoting the quality of instruction in each school (Han-
kook Kyoyook Shinmoon, 2008). However, these are based
on the teacher’s voluntary effort and consistent commit-
ment to make her instruction better. In fact, in an interview,
Ms. K emphasized this aspect when asked to how she
became an efficient and effective practitioner:
I am motivated as I attend teacher training courses,
seminars or lectures organized by the associations of
mathematics education, and research meetings among
teachers. I believe that an elementary school teacher should
be an expert at least in one subject matter, although she
needs to teach every subject. I have worked hard to keep up
with new trends in mathematics education and attempted
not to miss any opportunity that helps me develop good
mathematics instruction.
123
J. Pang
5 Closing remarks
A cautionary remark is that the aspects of good mathe-
matics teaching like Ms. K’s may be perceived somewhat
differently, as the grade level goes up. Korean students
prepare for a ‘‘high-stakes’’ examination to enter a good
college. This exam-driven educational culture in Korea
may influence high school instruction directly, leading to
teacher-directed and content-oriented pedagogy. In fact,
many desirable instances of mathematics practices are
studied and identified at elementary or middle school level
(e.g., Choe, 2002; Grow-Maienza et al., 1999; Kirshner
et al., 1998). As the grade level goes up, teachers become
increasingly concerned about skillful performances on the
examination. As a result, open-ended activities or discus-
sions occur infrequently. Students are occupied with just
following teachers’ explanations and practice.
The final remark is related to good teaching practice
nested in deep-rooted cultural values and norms. East
Asian teaching including Korea has been criticized as
teacher-dominated and passive learning. However, a fine-
grained analysis often reveals that students are indeed
engaged in mathematically meaningful exploration despite
the apparently negative styles of instruction such as lots
of teacher talk and few students talk (Huang & Leung,
2004; Li & Yang, 2007; Park & Leung, 2005). Therefore,
a careless adoption of new trend such as seemingly stu-
dent-centered activities may result in the loss of strong
content-oriented instruction, which contributes to the
superior performance in international comparisons on
mathematics achievement. We need to reflect on the
strengths and weaknesses of the existing teaching practice
and analyze its origin with regard to the underlying cul-
tural paradigms and societal needs. By identifying key
characteristics of good mathematic teaching implemented
at a Korean sixth grade classroom, this paper is expected
to increase our understanding of good instruction and to
further invoke productive dialogues across culturally dif-
ferent traditions.
References
Andrews, P., & Hatch, G. (2000). A comparison of Hungarian and
English teachers’ conceptions of mathematics and its teaching.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 43, 31–64. doi:10.1023/A:
1017575231667.
Artzt, A. F., & Armour-Thomas, E. (2002). Becoming a reflective
mathematics teacher. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Cai, J. (2004). Why do U.S. and Chinese students think differently in
mathematical problem solving? Impact of early algebra learning
and teachers’ beliefs. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23,
135–167.
Good mathematics instruction in South Korea
Choe, S. H. (2002). Improving the quality of school education in
Korea: A qualitative case study on good mathematics teaching in
secondary schools (in Korean). Research Report to Korea
Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation (RRC 2002-4-3).
Clark, D., & Hua, X. L. (2008). Mathematical orality in Asian and
Western mathematics classrooms. In O. Figueras, J. L. Cortina,
S. Alatorre, T. Rojano, & A. Sepulveda (Eds.), Proceedings of
the joint meeting of PME 32 and PME-NA XXX (Vol. 2, pp. 337–
344). Mexico: Cinvestav-UMSNH.
Clark, D., Keitel, C., & Shimizu, Y. (Eds.). (2006). Mathematics
classrooms in twelve countries: The insider’s perspective.
Rotterdam: Sense.
Daejeon Metropolitan Office of Education (2008, March 27). Plan of
the 14th instruction-research report content. Accessed 20 April
2008, from http://www.edurang.net.
Fernandez, C., & Cannon, J. (2005). What Japanese and US teachers
think about when constructing mathematics lessons: A pre-
liminary investigation. The Elementary School Journal, 105(5),
481–498. doi:10.1086/431886.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded
theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Grow-Maienza, J., Beal, S., & Randolph, T. (2003, April). Concep-
tualization of the constructs in Korean primary mathematics.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational
Research Association, Chicago.
Grow-Maienza, J., Hahn, D.-D., & Joo, C.-A. (1999, April).
Mathematics instruction in Korean primary schools: A linguistic
analysis of questioning. Paper presented at the Annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association. Montreal,
Canada.
Hankook Kyoyook Shinmoon (2008, March 20). Chief teacher: The
answer for good education and good teacher. Accessed 13
November 2008, from http://www.hangyo.com.
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth,
H., Jacobs, J., et al. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven
countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Washing-
ton, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Huang, R., & Leung, F. K. S. (2004). Cracking the paradox of the
Chinese learners: Looking into the mathematics classrooms in
Hong Kong and Shanghai. In L. Fan, N. Y. Wong, J. Cai, & S. Li
(Eds.), How Chinese learn mathematics: Perspectives from
insiders. New Jersey: World Scientific.
Im, C. B. & Choe, S. H. (2006). Manual of evaluating instruction:
Mathematics (in Korean). Korea Institute of Curriculum and
Evaluation (ORM 2006-24-4).
Kim, J., Kim, C., Lew, H., & Im, H. (1996). The Third International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS): National report for the
main study questionnaires (in Korean). Seoul: National Board of
Educational Evaluation.
Kirshner, D., Jeon, P. K., Pang, J. S., & Park, S. S. (1998).
Sociomathematical norms of elementary school classrooms:
Cross-national perspectives on challenges of reform in mathe-
matics teaching. Final report to the research foundation of the
Korea National University of Education.
Krainer, K. (2005). What is ‘‘Good’’ mathematics teaching, and how
can research inform practice and policy? Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 8, 75–81. doi:10.1007/s10857-005-4766-0.
Kwon, M. S., & Pang, J. S. (in preparation). What do elementary
school teachers regard as good mathematics teaching?
Leung, F. K. S. (2001). In search of East Asian identity in
mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
47, 35–51.
Leung, F. K. S., & Park, K. M. (2002). Competent students, competent
teachers? International Journal of Educational Research, 37(2),
113–129. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00055-1.
361
Li, Y., Ma, Y., & Pang, J. S. (2008). Mathematical preparation of
prospective elementary teachers. In P. Sullivan & T. Wood
(Eds.), The International handbook of mathematics teacher
education: Knowledge and beliefs in mathematics teaching and
teaching development (Vol. 1., pp. 37–62). Rotterdam: Sense.
Li, S., & Yang, Y. (2007). Insight into the development of
mathematics teaching: A comparative study of two videotaped
lessons. In Proceedings of National Meeting of Korea Society of
Mathematical Education (pp. 1–10).
Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ministry of Education. (1997). The 7th mathematics curriculum.
Seoul, Korea: the Author.
Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. (2007).
Revision of the 7th mathematics curriculum (in Korean). Seoul,
Korea: the Author.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Beaton, A. E., Gonzalez, E. J., Kelly,
D. L., & Smith, T. A. (2000). TIMSS 1999 international
mathematics report. Boston: Boston College.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional
standards. Reston, VA: The Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and
standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: The Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2007). Mathematics
teaching today (2nd ed.). Reston, VA: The Author.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation, Development. (2007).
Education at a glance, 2007: OECD indicators. Paris: Author.
Pang, J. S. (2002). Difficulties and issues in applying the 7th
mathematics curriculum to elementary school classrooms.
School Mathematics, 4(4), 657–675. (in Korean).
Pang, J. S. (2005). Transforming Korean elementary mathematics
classrooms to student-centered instruction. In H. L. Chick & J. L.
Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Educa-
tion (Vol. 4, pp. 41–48). Melbourne: PME.
Pang, J. S. (2008). Design and implementation of Korean mathemat-
ics textbooks. In Z. Usiskin & E. Willmore (Eds.), Mathematics
curriculum in pacific rim countries: China, Japan, Korea, and
Singapore (pp. 95–125). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Park, C., Jeong, E., Kim, K. Han, K., & Lee, S. (2004). Findings from
trends in international mathematics and science study for Korea:
TIMSS 2003 report in Korea. Korea Institute of Curriculum and
Evaluation. (in Korean).
Park, K., & Leung, F. K. S. (2005). Mathematics lessons in Korea:
Teaching with systematic variation. In D. J. Clarke, C. Keitel,
& Y. Shimizu (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms in twelve
countries: The insiders’ perspective (pp. 247–262). Rotterdam:
Sense.
Ross, J. A., McDougall, D., & Hogaboam-Gray, A. (2003). A survey
measuring elementary teachers’ implementation of standards-
based mathematics teaching. Journal for Research in Mathe-
matics Education, 34(4), 344–363.
Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education (2008, November 11). Data
on the number of applicants applied for the National Teacher
Employment Test for 2009. Accessed 13 November 2008 from
http://www.sen.go.kr.
Smith, D. C. (1994). Elementary teacher education in Korea.
Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Stake, R. E. (1998). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 86–109). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2000).
Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A case-
book for professional development. New York: Columbia
University.
123
362
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from
the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom.
New York: The Free Press.
Wilson, P. S., Cooney, T. J., & Stinson, D. W. (2005). What
constitutes good mathematics teaching and how it develops:
Nine high school teachers’ perspectives. Journal of Mathe-
matics Teacher Education, 8, 83–111. doi:10.1007/s10857-005-
4796-7.
123
J. Pang
Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumen-
tation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477. doi:10.2307/749877.
Yin, R. K. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (2005). Best practice:
Today’s standards for teaching and learning in America’s
schools (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.