论文部分内容阅读
This study aimed to examine and track the transformations in the mathematics intended curriculum during the latest reform in China from a neutral and objective perspective. Following the document analysis used in TIMSS (the Third International Mathematics and Science Study), the results indicated that a more modern system of mathematics knowledge had been constructed after the reform and the curriculum standard emphasized more on its facilitating role. Compared to TIMSS top-achieving countries and regions, it found that the pattern of topics in curriculum guide in China exhibited a similar coherent pattern to those high achieving countries but more concentrated. Moreover, the decentralization in the curriculum standard was unable to figure out the pattern of topics on the intended curriculum level. Lastly, the influence of decentralization in the curriculum standard was discussed.
Keywords: intended curriculum, mathematics, curriculum guide, curriculum standard
Introduction
Advances in information technology have lives changed dramatically. To prepare next generation for the future in the new millennium, countries had paid close attention to their own curriculums at the end of last century. In 1980s and earlier, education reform was witnessed in many countries (Lewin, 1985; Wang, 2010). The TIMSS (the Third International Mathematics and Science Study) revealed that 25 countries out of 36 had initiated national mathematics curriculum reforms in the early 1990s (Schmidt, Mcknight, Valverde, Houang,& Wiley, 1997). Reform efforts have produced a renewed interest in focusing on content standards?the intended curriculum. China has begun its latest curriculum reform in basic education since 2001. Shanghai, one of the four municipalities directly under the central government who using the same curriculum standard as the rest of regions in China, took part in the PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) in 2009 and ranked first in mathematics in the all the participating countries and regions (OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2011). Its outstanding performance in PISA attracts more and more
*Acknowledgement: This article is based on a proposal accepted by the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, April 13-17, 2012.
Yehui Wang, Ph.D., candidate, National Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, Beijing Normal University. Yufang Bian, professor, National Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, Beijing Normal University.
Tao Xin, professor, Institute of Developmental Psychology, Beijing Normal University.
Neelam Kher, Ph.D., research associate, College of Education, Michigan State University.
Richard T. Houang, associate professor, College of Education, Michigan State University.
William H. Schmidt, professor, College of Education, Michigan State University.
interests in Chinese intended curriculum.
Researches on Intended Curriculum
The intended curriculum, an important concept in the tri-partite model of curriculum, has been employed in many studies of the IEA (International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement). In this model, curriculum is divided into three layers: the intended, implemented and attained. The intended curriculum defines what a system expects students to learn (Schmidt et al., 1997). The study of intended curriculum would have far-reaching implications, because only by setting up ambitious curriculum intentions will students have the opportunity to attain high levels of achievement (Valverde, Bianchi, Wolfe, Schmidt, & Houang, 2002). The analysis of the materials about the intended curriculum, such as policy documents, curriculum guides/standards, syllabi, textbooks and related materials would provide a glimpse of curriculum intention. These materials published by the local or central government reflect the aims, intentions and viewpoints of the policy-makers officially and directly. The textbook, interpreted by the authors, maybe considered as a partial and indirect manifestation of the potential intended curriculum. It may be appropriately viewed as the bridge between the curriculum intention and implementation and was leveled out from intended curriculum to become a single level named potential implemented curriculum (Schmidt et al., 1997).
In 1988, the Education Reform Act required a national curriculum and assessment system to make sure that all the students could be examined at the end of four key stages in England. The National Curriculum Assessment has functioned in England for more than 20 years and provided the government and public great information about the curriculum standards (Whetton, 2009). Researchers in the United States have also dug deeply in the curriculum in the past 30 years. The standard-based reform was fostered when the demand of higher quality public education became apparent (Smith, 1990). Ball and Cohen (1996) found that changes in mathematics teaching mainly depended on revision of curriculum materials. Researchers specialized in curriculum and policy-makers concerned about the US curriculum standards compared to other top-achievement countries’curriculum standard. Through exploring the TIMSS data, Schmidt, Wang, and McKnight (2005) found that the content topics in TIMSS top-achievement countries and regions showed a coherent pattern sharply contrasting with the pattern of laundry lists of topics with longer stay in more grades, but lack of coherence both in American’s national and state content standards. Still, a large number of researchers and organizations concentrated on the quality of state standards as well (Clements, 2007; Porter, Polikoff, & Smithson, 2009). Their researches got the similar conclusions. The Latest Curriculum Reform in China
Background
As we know, China mainland rarely took part in the international mathematics assessment except Beijing in 1989 IAEP (International Assessment of Educational Progress) and Shanghai in 2009 PISA. In 1989 IAEP, on non-routine problem-solving, students from eight countries performed better than Chinese students did, though they were on the top of overall performance in all the countries (Fan & Zhu, 2004). However, in 2009 PISA, Chinese students performed best no matter in overall performance or high level of proficiency in all the participating countries and regions (OECD, 2009). The latest curriculum reform was carried out between the two assessments, which brought changes into every aspect of curriculum.
Although there have been regular curriculum reform efforts in China, little has been known to the outside world. Only very few essays briefly introduce the latest curriculum reform in recent years (Huang, 2004; Hu, 2008; Wei, 2009; Xu, 2009; Li & Ni, 2011; Ni, Q. Li, X. Li, & Zhang, 2011). Since the reform and opening-up policy carried out in 1978, the connection between China and the rest of the world is much closer and inseparable in every aspect. Since 1990s, the rapid development of economics and the popularization of information technology have influenced the education policies in every nation in the world (Dale, 1999; Huang, 2004; Singh, 2004; Liu, 2009; Zhong, 2008; Teodoro & Estrela, 2010). China is a nation with more than 5,000-year history. The increasing demand of balancing the globalization and traditions drove education policy-makers to concern about how the curriculums could achieve the sustainable development for the young. It was in this backdrop that China began to prepare for the latest curriculum reform.
The Preparation for the Latest Curriculum Reform
In 1996, Ministry of Education conducted a survey in nine provinces as the beginning of the preparation for the latest curriculum reform. Nearly, 16,000 students in grades 1-9 and about 2,000 teachers, principals and communities were investigated. It revealed several urgent problems. Taking elementary school mathematics for example, about 57% of principals and 46% of teachers reflected that there were too many required topics. Nearly 60% of principals and 40% teachers agreed that some topics, too difficult and obsolete, were inappropriate for students’ development. Still 30% of principals and 50% of teachers complained about the insufficient teaching time for required contents. Especially up to 48% of principals reported that for the lack of teaching time, teachers failed to achieve the requirements in the curriculum guide and were hard to finish all the contents in textbooks. Since 1998, in preparation for curriculum reform, researches about curriculum quality have been conducted at different levels, from school, district to the central. The decision of deepening educational reform and all-round pushing quality education issued in 1999, required reform of the curriculum organization, construction and content to establish a new basic education curriculum system and encouraged the three-class(the central, local and school levels) curriculum mode. By April 2000, the drafts of “National Curriculum Standards” of all subjects in basic education had been completed by the collaboration of experts in curriculum and education practitioners. In the following four months, opinions were solicited from different sectors of community (Zhong, 2008; Zhu, 2002).
Through years of preparation, the latest national curriculum reform in China started as the publication of the “Guideline for Curriculum Reform in Basic Education” (draft) by Ministry of Education in June, 2001, which has brought substantial changes to every school, teacher and student (Xu, 2009). The “National Curriculum Standards” (draft) for all subjects came into effect in 38 trial areas in September, 2001. The percentage of students who were taught by “National Curriculum Standards” was between 10%-15% in 2002 and expanded to 35% one year later. It was not until 2005 that all the students in the beginning grade in elementary, middle and high schools were taught according to the new curriculum standards and used counterpart textbooks.
The Mathematics Intended Curriculum for Elementary School
In each curriculum reform, the intended curriculum always attracted most attention, because any minor change would cause series of transformations in the whole curriculum system. The mathematics curriculum guide used before this reform, over-emphasizing on the knowledge, called two basics (basic knowledge and basic skill) in Chinese leading teachers to excessively focus on the content which resulted in refined lectures and repeated practice in instruction (Zhang, Li, & Tang, 2004; Ni, Q. Li, X. Li, & Zhang, 2011). Proficiently in mastering of the two basics, students dealt with word problems accurately and efficiently and were more likely to solve problems by abstract strategies (Cai & Hwang, 2002; Cai & Cifarelli, 2004; Cai & Lester, 2005). What is more, the mathematics education before the latest reform was criticized as examination-oriented emphasizing abstract knowledge, teaching according to the examination requirement and ignoring students’ attitude and emotion. It resulted in rote-memorization and drilled mechanically in teaching and learning. Students were labeled with “high score low ability” those who scoring high in tests cannot generalize the particular knowledge beyond the classroom into real life. What is even worse, the passive attitude, even phobia and disgust towards mathematics was fostered among students due to the boring assessment. Such outcome was completely antithetical to the original goal of curriculum designers. In order to increase students’ interests and develop their positive attitude and value toward subjects, the“Guideline for Curriculum Reform in Basic Education” (draft) clearly required changes in the curriculum from over-heavily weighted on pure subject-based knowledge to more comprehensive and application of knowledge(Ministry of Education). The new intended curriculum should explicate objectives operationally, regulate contents and outline principals for curriculum implementation, acquirement and evaluation generally (Huang, 2004). After the reform, the name of intended curriculum?“National Curriculum Standard” replaced curriculum guide in Chinese in all subjects. The mathematics “National Curriculum Standard” is not only the fundamental standard specifying topics to be taught, directing the textbook compilation and examination, but also the basic criterion for curriculum implementation and evaluation (Yu, 2007). Emphasis was laid on the minimum requirements of the subject knowledge, performance expectation, emotion, attitude and value towards subjects instead of two basics emphasized before (Huang, 2004). Through the reform, a brand new three-dimension mathematic knowledge system was constructed. By constructing such a multi-faceted system, the mathematics “National Curriculum Standard” aimed to establish the role of students as the positive active participants, a departure from mechanistic rote learning before, and to develop their capacities in communication, acquiring new knowledge and solving problems instead of becoming passive receptionists. Therefore, an active interaction and equal-dialogue relationship between teachers and students could be established eventually which was thought as the realization of quality education (Cui, 2009).
The Purpose of the Study
In 2010, State Council issued the “Outline for Medium and Long-Term Development and Reform of Education”, which proposed the scheme of education development in the next decade. It has been 11 years since the latest curriculum reform. Now in China, “National Curriculum Standard” of all subjects have been revised and published in February, 2012. It should be admitted that the reform in curriculum is a sustained topic and how to improve the curriculum quality is under the spotlight. There were kinds of studies about the efficiency of the reform on mathematics. However, none of them focused on the intended curriculum. They paid more attention to teacher instruction and students’ achievement and mentioned it in a descriptive way as their study background (Li & Ni, 2011; Ni, Q., Li, X., Li, & Zhang, 2011). In fact, setting up a high quality intended curriculum, especially under the centralized curriculum system in China, is the primary and vital step in the whole process. Since the mathematics “National Curriculum Standard” carried out, there has been a debate about the efficiency of the reform. Based on the TIMSS framework, this study tried to examine and track the transformations in the mathematics intended curriculum during the latest reform from a neutral and objective perspective. Under the guidance of the new ideal of this curriculum reform, exporters had renewed the knowledge system of mathematics thoroughly. What the changes are in the mathematics intended curriculum for elementary school during the reform is the first problem the study try to answer. On accounting of its increasing importance in the world, China began to focus on the “World-Class Content Standard” to prepare the young for a better future life. Compared to those top-achieving countries in TIMSS, what the characteristics of intended curriculum for elementary school are that in China both before and after the latest reform is another question the study concerned.
What should be clarified is that the textbook was not included as the intended curriculum in the study. Because it was not until the latest curriculum reform, any individual or institute has been authorized to compile, publish and distribute textbooks nationally or locally after approval by the central or the local levels. The textbook was not authoritative, as before any more. The work of textbook compilation has been highly valued in China. PEP (People’s Education Press) was the only organization in the whole country responsible for the compilation of textbook for basic education before 1988. Since then, the Ministry of Education began the trial on textbook diversification. A very small number of provinces and cities, such as Shanghai were authorized to compile their own textbooks. Though there were numerous trials on the diversification of textbooks, still most teachers and students in China uniformly used the textbooks published by PEP. However, after the latest reform, the Examining and Approving Office of Teaching Material of Basic Education under the Ministry of Education(2001) reported that there were six series of mathematics textbooks allowed to be published in national wide, while great amount of textbooks were used locally. Facing the same curriculum standard, different compilers may have various interpretations and arrangements. It can no longer reflect the intention of intended curriculum designers as directly as before.
Method
Two graduate students took part in the coding work. They firstly attended one-day training to learn the document analysis, which firstly used in TIMSS (Robitaille, 1993; Schmidt et al., 1997). This method divided the document into units with six types (introduction to guide, policy, objective, content, pedagogy and other), and then further divided each unit into blocks with seven types (official policies, objective, content element, pedagogical suggestions, examples, assessment suggestions and other). In TIMSS, each block was labeled according to the TIMSS mathematics framework. However, in present study, only the block of content element was required to be labeled. State Council. (1999). The decision of deepening educational reform and all-round pushing quality education. (in Chinese) Retrieved from http://www.edu.cn/zong_he_870/20100719/t20100719_497966.shtml
State Council. (2010). Outline for medium and long-term development and reform of education. (in Chinese) Retrieved from http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2010-07/29/content_1667143.htm.
Teodoro, A., & Estrela, E. (2010). Curriculum policy in Portugal (1995-2007): Global agendas and regional and national reconfigurations. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(5), 621-647.
The Examining and Approving Office of Teaching Material of Basic Education. (2006). The review of the experiment textbook for compulsory education (the elementary school volume). Beijing: People Education Press. (in Chinese)
Travers, K. J., & Westbury, I. (1989). The IEA study of mathematics I: Analysis of mathematics curricula. Pergamon Press.
Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the book: Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Wang, H. (2010). Translating policies into practice: The role of middle-level administrators in language curriculum implementation. Curriculum Journal, 21(2), 123-140.
Wei, B. (2009). In search of meaningful integration: The experiences of developing integrated science curricula in junior secondary schools in China. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 259-277.
Whetton, C. (2009). A brief history of a testing time: National curriculum assessment in England 1989-2008. Educational Research, 51(2), 137-159.
Xu, Y. Z. (2009). School-based teacher development through a school university collaborative project: A case study of a recent initiative in China. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(1), 49-66.
Yu, X. D. (2007). The research on the curriculum reform for the basic education. Shanghai: East China Normal University. (in Chinese)
Zhang, D., Li, S., & Tang, R. (2004). The “two basics”: Mathematics teaching and learning in Mainland China. In L. Fan, N. Y. Wong, J. Cai, & S. Li (Eds.), How Chinese learn mathematics: Perspectives from insiders (pp. 189-207). River Edge, N. J.: World Scientific Press.
Zhong, Q. Q. (2008). The conception and renovation of new curriculum: For the normal students. Beijing: High Education Press.(In Chinese)
Zhu, M. J. (2002). Walk into the new curriculum: The dialog with curriculum practice. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press.(in Chinese)
Keywords: intended curriculum, mathematics, curriculum guide, curriculum standard
Introduction
Advances in information technology have lives changed dramatically. To prepare next generation for the future in the new millennium, countries had paid close attention to their own curriculums at the end of last century. In 1980s and earlier, education reform was witnessed in many countries (Lewin, 1985; Wang, 2010). The TIMSS (the Third International Mathematics and Science Study) revealed that 25 countries out of 36 had initiated national mathematics curriculum reforms in the early 1990s (Schmidt, Mcknight, Valverde, Houang,& Wiley, 1997). Reform efforts have produced a renewed interest in focusing on content standards?the intended curriculum. China has begun its latest curriculum reform in basic education since 2001. Shanghai, one of the four municipalities directly under the central government who using the same curriculum standard as the rest of regions in China, took part in the PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) in 2009 and ranked first in mathematics in the all the participating countries and regions (OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2011). Its outstanding performance in PISA attracts more and more
*Acknowledgement: This article is based on a proposal accepted by the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, April 13-17, 2012.
Yehui Wang, Ph.D., candidate, National Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, Beijing Normal University. Yufang Bian, professor, National Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, Beijing Normal University.
Tao Xin, professor, Institute of Developmental Psychology, Beijing Normal University.
Neelam Kher, Ph.D., research associate, College of Education, Michigan State University.
Richard T. Houang, associate professor, College of Education, Michigan State University.
William H. Schmidt, professor, College of Education, Michigan State University.
interests in Chinese intended curriculum.
Researches on Intended Curriculum
The intended curriculum, an important concept in the tri-partite model of curriculum, has been employed in many studies of the IEA (International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement). In this model, curriculum is divided into three layers: the intended, implemented and attained. The intended curriculum defines what a system expects students to learn (Schmidt et al., 1997). The study of intended curriculum would have far-reaching implications, because only by setting up ambitious curriculum intentions will students have the opportunity to attain high levels of achievement (Valverde, Bianchi, Wolfe, Schmidt, & Houang, 2002). The analysis of the materials about the intended curriculum, such as policy documents, curriculum guides/standards, syllabi, textbooks and related materials would provide a glimpse of curriculum intention. These materials published by the local or central government reflect the aims, intentions and viewpoints of the policy-makers officially and directly. The textbook, interpreted by the authors, maybe considered as a partial and indirect manifestation of the potential intended curriculum. It may be appropriately viewed as the bridge between the curriculum intention and implementation and was leveled out from intended curriculum to become a single level named potential implemented curriculum (Schmidt et al., 1997).
In 1988, the Education Reform Act required a national curriculum and assessment system to make sure that all the students could be examined at the end of four key stages in England. The National Curriculum Assessment has functioned in England for more than 20 years and provided the government and public great information about the curriculum standards (Whetton, 2009). Researchers in the United States have also dug deeply in the curriculum in the past 30 years. The standard-based reform was fostered when the demand of higher quality public education became apparent (Smith, 1990). Ball and Cohen (1996) found that changes in mathematics teaching mainly depended on revision of curriculum materials. Researchers specialized in curriculum and policy-makers concerned about the US curriculum standards compared to other top-achievement countries’curriculum standard. Through exploring the TIMSS data, Schmidt, Wang, and McKnight (2005) found that the content topics in TIMSS top-achievement countries and regions showed a coherent pattern sharply contrasting with the pattern of laundry lists of topics with longer stay in more grades, but lack of coherence both in American’s national and state content standards. Still, a large number of researchers and organizations concentrated on the quality of state standards as well (Clements, 2007; Porter, Polikoff, & Smithson, 2009). Their researches got the similar conclusions. The Latest Curriculum Reform in China
Background
As we know, China mainland rarely took part in the international mathematics assessment except Beijing in 1989 IAEP (International Assessment of Educational Progress) and Shanghai in 2009 PISA. In 1989 IAEP, on non-routine problem-solving, students from eight countries performed better than Chinese students did, though they were on the top of overall performance in all the countries (Fan & Zhu, 2004). However, in 2009 PISA, Chinese students performed best no matter in overall performance or high level of proficiency in all the participating countries and regions (OECD, 2009). The latest curriculum reform was carried out between the two assessments, which brought changes into every aspect of curriculum.
Although there have been regular curriculum reform efforts in China, little has been known to the outside world. Only very few essays briefly introduce the latest curriculum reform in recent years (Huang, 2004; Hu, 2008; Wei, 2009; Xu, 2009; Li & Ni, 2011; Ni, Q. Li, X. Li, & Zhang, 2011). Since the reform and opening-up policy carried out in 1978, the connection between China and the rest of the world is much closer and inseparable in every aspect. Since 1990s, the rapid development of economics and the popularization of information technology have influenced the education policies in every nation in the world (Dale, 1999; Huang, 2004; Singh, 2004; Liu, 2009; Zhong, 2008; Teodoro & Estrela, 2010). China is a nation with more than 5,000-year history. The increasing demand of balancing the globalization and traditions drove education policy-makers to concern about how the curriculums could achieve the sustainable development for the young. It was in this backdrop that China began to prepare for the latest curriculum reform.
The Preparation for the Latest Curriculum Reform
In 1996, Ministry of Education conducted a survey in nine provinces as the beginning of the preparation for the latest curriculum reform. Nearly, 16,000 students in grades 1-9 and about 2,000 teachers, principals and communities were investigated. It revealed several urgent problems. Taking elementary school mathematics for example, about 57% of principals and 46% of teachers reflected that there were too many required topics. Nearly 60% of principals and 40% teachers agreed that some topics, too difficult and obsolete, were inappropriate for students’ development. Still 30% of principals and 50% of teachers complained about the insufficient teaching time for required contents. Especially up to 48% of principals reported that for the lack of teaching time, teachers failed to achieve the requirements in the curriculum guide and were hard to finish all the contents in textbooks. Since 1998, in preparation for curriculum reform, researches about curriculum quality have been conducted at different levels, from school, district to the central. The decision of deepening educational reform and all-round pushing quality education issued in 1999, required reform of the curriculum organization, construction and content to establish a new basic education curriculum system and encouraged the three-class(the central, local and school levels) curriculum mode. By April 2000, the drafts of “National Curriculum Standards” of all subjects in basic education had been completed by the collaboration of experts in curriculum and education practitioners. In the following four months, opinions were solicited from different sectors of community (Zhong, 2008; Zhu, 2002).
Through years of preparation, the latest national curriculum reform in China started as the publication of the “Guideline for Curriculum Reform in Basic Education” (draft) by Ministry of Education in June, 2001, which has brought substantial changes to every school, teacher and student (Xu, 2009). The “National Curriculum Standards” (draft) for all subjects came into effect in 38 trial areas in September, 2001. The percentage of students who were taught by “National Curriculum Standards” was between 10%-15% in 2002 and expanded to 35% one year later. It was not until 2005 that all the students in the beginning grade in elementary, middle and high schools were taught according to the new curriculum standards and used counterpart textbooks.
The Mathematics Intended Curriculum for Elementary School
In each curriculum reform, the intended curriculum always attracted most attention, because any minor change would cause series of transformations in the whole curriculum system. The mathematics curriculum guide used before this reform, over-emphasizing on the knowledge, called two basics (basic knowledge and basic skill) in Chinese leading teachers to excessively focus on the content which resulted in refined lectures and repeated practice in instruction (Zhang, Li, & Tang, 2004; Ni, Q. Li, X. Li, & Zhang, 2011). Proficiently in mastering of the two basics, students dealt with word problems accurately and efficiently and were more likely to solve problems by abstract strategies (Cai & Hwang, 2002; Cai & Cifarelli, 2004; Cai & Lester, 2005). What is more, the mathematics education before the latest reform was criticized as examination-oriented emphasizing abstract knowledge, teaching according to the examination requirement and ignoring students’ attitude and emotion. It resulted in rote-memorization and drilled mechanically in teaching and learning. Students were labeled with “high score low ability” those who scoring high in tests cannot generalize the particular knowledge beyond the classroom into real life. What is even worse, the passive attitude, even phobia and disgust towards mathematics was fostered among students due to the boring assessment. Such outcome was completely antithetical to the original goal of curriculum designers. In order to increase students’ interests and develop their positive attitude and value toward subjects, the“Guideline for Curriculum Reform in Basic Education” (draft) clearly required changes in the curriculum from over-heavily weighted on pure subject-based knowledge to more comprehensive and application of knowledge(Ministry of Education). The new intended curriculum should explicate objectives operationally, regulate contents and outline principals for curriculum implementation, acquirement and evaluation generally (Huang, 2004). After the reform, the name of intended curriculum?“National Curriculum Standard” replaced curriculum guide in Chinese in all subjects. The mathematics “National Curriculum Standard” is not only the fundamental standard specifying topics to be taught, directing the textbook compilation and examination, but also the basic criterion for curriculum implementation and evaluation (Yu, 2007). Emphasis was laid on the minimum requirements of the subject knowledge, performance expectation, emotion, attitude and value towards subjects instead of two basics emphasized before (Huang, 2004). Through the reform, a brand new three-dimension mathematic knowledge system was constructed. By constructing such a multi-faceted system, the mathematics “National Curriculum Standard” aimed to establish the role of students as the positive active participants, a departure from mechanistic rote learning before, and to develop their capacities in communication, acquiring new knowledge and solving problems instead of becoming passive receptionists. Therefore, an active interaction and equal-dialogue relationship between teachers and students could be established eventually which was thought as the realization of quality education (Cui, 2009).
The Purpose of the Study
In 2010, State Council issued the “Outline for Medium and Long-Term Development and Reform of Education”, which proposed the scheme of education development in the next decade. It has been 11 years since the latest curriculum reform. Now in China, “National Curriculum Standard” of all subjects have been revised and published in February, 2012. It should be admitted that the reform in curriculum is a sustained topic and how to improve the curriculum quality is under the spotlight. There were kinds of studies about the efficiency of the reform on mathematics. However, none of them focused on the intended curriculum. They paid more attention to teacher instruction and students’ achievement and mentioned it in a descriptive way as their study background (Li & Ni, 2011; Ni, Q., Li, X., Li, & Zhang, 2011). In fact, setting up a high quality intended curriculum, especially under the centralized curriculum system in China, is the primary and vital step in the whole process. Since the mathematics “National Curriculum Standard” carried out, there has been a debate about the efficiency of the reform. Based on the TIMSS framework, this study tried to examine and track the transformations in the mathematics intended curriculum during the latest reform from a neutral and objective perspective. Under the guidance of the new ideal of this curriculum reform, exporters had renewed the knowledge system of mathematics thoroughly. What the changes are in the mathematics intended curriculum for elementary school during the reform is the first problem the study try to answer. On accounting of its increasing importance in the world, China began to focus on the “World-Class Content Standard” to prepare the young for a better future life. Compared to those top-achieving countries in TIMSS, what the characteristics of intended curriculum for elementary school are that in China both before and after the latest reform is another question the study concerned.
What should be clarified is that the textbook was not included as the intended curriculum in the study. Because it was not until the latest curriculum reform, any individual or institute has been authorized to compile, publish and distribute textbooks nationally or locally after approval by the central or the local levels. The textbook was not authoritative, as before any more. The work of textbook compilation has been highly valued in China. PEP (People’s Education Press) was the only organization in the whole country responsible for the compilation of textbook for basic education before 1988. Since then, the Ministry of Education began the trial on textbook diversification. A very small number of provinces and cities, such as Shanghai were authorized to compile their own textbooks. Though there were numerous trials on the diversification of textbooks, still most teachers and students in China uniformly used the textbooks published by PEP. However, after the latest reform, the Examining and Approving Office of Teaching Material of Basic Education under the Ministry of Education(2001) reported that there were six series of mathematics textbooks allowed to be published in national wide, while great amount of textbooks were used locally. Facing the same curriculum standard, different compilers may have various interpretations and arrangements. It can no longer reflect the intention of intended curriculum designers as directly as before.
Method
Two graduate students took part in the coding work. They firstly attended one-day training to learn the document analysis, which firstly used in TIMSS (Robitaille, 1993; Schmidt et al., 1997). This method divided the document into units with six types (introduction to guide, policy, objective, content, pedagogy and other), and then further divided each unit into blocks with seven types (official policies, objective, content element, pedagogical suggestions, examples, assessment suggestions and other). In TIMSS, each block was labeled according to the TIMSS mathematics framework. However, in present study, only the block of content element was required to be labeled. State Council. (1999). The decision of deepening educational reform and all-round pushing quality education. (in Chinese) Retrieved from http://www.edu.cn/zong_he_870/20100719/t20100719_497966.shtml
State Council. (2010). Outline for medium and long-term development and reform of education. (in Chinese) Retrieved from http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2010-07/29/content_1667143.htm.
Teodoro, A., & Estrela, E. (2010). Curriculum policy in Portugal (1995-2007): Global agendas and regional and national reconfigurations. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(5), 621-647.
The Examining and Approving Office of Teaching Material of Basic Education. (2006). The review of the experiment textbook for compulsory education (the elementary school volume). Beijing: People Education Press. (in Chinese)
Travers, K. J., & Westbury, I. (1989). The IEA study of mathematics I: Analysis of mathematics curricula. Pergamon Press.
Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the book: Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Wang, H. (2010). Translating policies into practice: The role of middle-level administrators in language curriculum implementation. Curriculum Journal, 21(2), 123-140.
Wei, B. (2009). In search of meaningful integration: The experiences of developing integrated science curricula in junior secondary schools in China. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 259-277.
Whetton, C. (2009). A brief history of a testing time: National curriculum assessment in England 1989-2008. Educational Research, 51(2), 137-159.
Xu, Y. Z. (2009). School-based teacher development through a school university collaborative project: A case study of a recent initiative in China. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(1), 49-66.
Yu, X. D. (2007). The research on the curriculum reform for the basic education. Shanghai: East China Normal University. (in Chinese)
Zhang, D., Li, S., & Tang, R. (2004). The “two basics”: Mathematics teaching and learning in Mainland China. In L. Fan, N. Y. Wong, J. Cai, & S. Li (Eds.), How Chinese learn mathematics: Perspectives from insiders (pp. 189-207). River Edge, N. J.: World Scientific Press.
Zhong, Q. Q. (2008). The conception and renovation of new curriculum: For the normal students. Beijing: High Education Press.(In Chinese)
Zhu, M. J. (2002). Walk into the new curriculum: The dialog with curriculum practice. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press.(in Chinese)