Search

The aim of the study is to investigate and compare approaches to algebra in the Estonian, Finnish, and Swedish national core curricula (Grades 1–9). Despite the similarities in the school systems of these neighboring countries, the analysis reveals three quite different curricular approaches. The Estonian approach shows influences of the Russian Davydov School. The Finnish approach to some extent resembles the traditional one whereby algebra is addressed first at the lower secondary level and then in a formal manner. However, there are also characteristics typical of the functional view, which dominates the Swedish curriculum. Here, as opposed to the documents from the other two countries, a transition to more formal sophisticated methods at the secondary level is not visible at all. We discuss the results in relation to earlier research and students' different learning outcomes in light of international evaluations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Acta Paedagogica Vilnensia is the property of Vilnius University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Many countries are revising their mathematics curriculum in order to elevate the role of proof and argumentation at all school levels and for all student groups. Yet, we have very little research on how proof-related competences are aimed to be developed in the mathematics curricula of different countries in Grades 1 to 12. This article contributes to filling this gap by analysing and comparing three countries’ curricula from the perspective of developmental proof. For this purpose, we created an analytical frame of proof-related competences that could be connected to the development of students’ understanding and skills concerning argumentation and mathematical proof. The analysis reveals three quite different trajectories with specific characteristics, shortcomings and strengths. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Copyright of Teacher Education / Mokytoju Ugdymas is the property of Center of Research in Education Studies, Siauliai University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Pedagogy Studies / Pedagogika is the property of Vytautas Magnus University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Pedagogy Studies / Pedagogika is the property of Vytautas Magnus University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)