Primary School Mathematics Education Curricula in the United States and Latvia

Astrida Cirulis, I. Helmane
{"title":"Primary School Mathematics Education Curricula in the United States and Latvia","authors":"Astrida Cirulis, I. Helmane","doi":"10.22364/atee.2022.41","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Mathematics and its related competencies are used consciously and unconsciously in many of life’s everyday activities regardless of the country or geographical location, policies, social, economic or political situations. The abstract language of mathematics is understood throughout the world but is learned in a variety of different types and levels of institutions of learning. An everchanging globalized world prioritizes the need for mathematics. Therefore, the mathematics taught in school should give an understanding of mathematics and the tools to use mathematics effectively in new situations. It is common today that many countries are re-evaluating and revising their education system’s standards for mathematics teaching, recognizing the changing needs of the work force and society. Within the framework of a project implemented at the Faculty of Pedagogy, Psychology and Art at the University of Latvia, one of the main priorities of which is to promote the exchange of academic staff and cooperation in training future teachers, it was possible to evaluate and compare mathematics curricula in both countries. The aim of this paper is to do a preliminary analysis of the content of the basic education curricula in Latvia and U.S., focusing specifically on geometry and measurement, and seek data about the impact of the Standards on learning. The study, using document analysis, reviews the competency-based approach taken in Latvia’s Skola2030 (School2030), and compares it to the Common Core State Standards, implemented in the U.S. A review of the similarities and differences in the content and sequencing is explored. Reviewing the mathematics content in both countries showed more similarities than differences in geometry and measurement. The study looked at not only the mathematical content of the standards but also the approach both countries’ standards take in developing students’ conceptual understanding of primary mathematics to promote mathematical literacy for all students.","PeriodicalId":286803,"journal":{"name":"To Be or Not to Be a Great Educator","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"To Be or Not to Be a Great Educator","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22364/atee.2022.41","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Mathematics and its related competencies are used consciously and unconsciously in many of life’s everyday activities regardless of the country or geographical location, policies, social, economic or political situations. The abstract language of mathematics is understood throughout the world but is learned in a variety of different types and levels of institutions of learning. An everchanging globalized world prioritizes the need for mathematics. Therefore, the mathematics taught in school should give an understanding of mathematics and the tools to use mathematics effectively in new situations. It is common today that many countries are re-evaluating and revising their education system’s standards for mathematics teaching, recognizing the changing needs of the work force and society. Within the framework of a project implemented at the Faculty of Pedagogy, Psychology and Art at the University of Latvia, one of the main priorities of which is to promote the exchange of academic staff and cooperation in training future teachers, it was possible to evaluate and compare mathematics curricula in both countries. The aim of this paper is to do a preliminary analysis of the content of the basic education curricula in Latvia and U.S., focusing specifically on geometry and measurement, and seek data about the impact of the Standards on learning. The study, using document analysis, reviews the competency-based approach taken in Latvia’s Skola2030 (School2030), and compares it to the Common Core State Standards, implemented in the U.S. A review of the similarities and differences in the content and sequencing is explored. Reviewing the mathematics content in both countries showed more similarities than differences in geometry and measurement. The study looked at not only the mathematical content of the standards but also the approach both countries’ standards take in developing students’ conceptual understanding of primary mathematics to promote mathematical literacy for all students.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国和拉脱维亚小学数学教育课程
无论国家或地理位置、政策、社会、经济或政治状况如何,数学及其相关能力都有意识或无意识地应用于许多日常生活活动中。数学的抽象语言在全世界都能理解,但在各种不同类型和层次的学习机构中学习。一个不断变化的全球化世界优先需要数学。因此,学校的数学教学应该给予学生对数学的理解和在新情况下有效使用数学的工具。今天,许多国家认识到劳动力和社会不断变化的需求,正在重新评估和修订其教育系统的数学教学标准,这是很常见的。在拉脱维亚大学教育学、心理学和艺术系实施的一个项目框架内,有可能对两国的数学课程进行评价和比较,该项目的主要优先事项之一是促进学术人员的交流和在培训未来教师方面的合作。本文的目的是对拉脱维亚和美国的基础教育课程内容进行初步分析,特别关注几何和测量,并寻求有关标准对学习影响的数据。本研究通过文献分析,回顾了拉脱维亚的Skola2030 (School2030)中采用的基于能力的方法,并将其与美国实施的共同核心国家标准进行了比较,探讨了内容和顺序的异同。回顾两国的数学内容,发现几何和测量方面的相似之处多于差异。该研究不仅考察了标准的数学内容,还考察了两国标准在培养学生对小学数学的概念理解以促进所有学生的数学素养方面所采取的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Indicators of Social Emotional Health (SEHS-T) and Resilience in the Latvian Teachers’ Sample Focusing on Arts Education from the Perspectives of Well-Being The Impact of Additional Sports Activities on the Development of Students in General Education Schools Integrating Computational Thinking into Classroom Practice: A Case Study Teacher Creator: Practices of Creating Educational Contexts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1