Are Mathematics Curricula Harmonizing Globally Over Time? Evidence from TIMSS National Research Coordinator Data
Stefan Johansson 1  
More details
Hide details
Department of Education and Special Education, University of Gothenburg, SWEDEN
Department of Social and Behavioural Studies, University West, SWEDEN
Publish date: 2018-11-01
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2019;15(2):em1656
Given the impact of international large-scale assessments (ILSAs) on policy-making in different educational systems around the world, this study aims to examine whether national mathematics curricula in different educational systems harmonize over time. Data from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) is used to explore this issue. In addition to background questionnaires given to students, teachers and schools, a curriculum questionnaire was completed by each national research coordinator (NRC) in all participating countries in each TIMSS cycle. In the present study, data from 2003, 2007, 2011 and 2015 was used. The analyses focused on the information about the extent to which the national mathematics curriculum covered certain topics in the subdomains of mathematics tested in TIMSS Grade 8. Growth curve modeling and latent profile analyses were applied to uncover the development trend and countries’ unobserved profiles in mathematics content domains of Number, Algebra, Geometry, and Data. Three clusters of countries were identified. Most countries belonged to the same profile in the later cycles of TIMSS. The study found indications of a general harmonization with respect to number of topics covered in countries’ curricula over time, thus contributing to discussions of policy implications of a global curriculum.
1. Baker, B., & LeTendre, G. (2005). National Differences, Global Similarities: World Culture and the Future of Schooling. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2005.
2. Benavot, A., Cha, Y.-K., Kamens, D., Meyer, J. W., & Wong, S.-Y. (1991). Knowledge for the Masses: World Models and National Curricula, 1920-1986. American Sociological Review, 56(1), 85-100.
3. Bromley, P., Meyer, J. W., & Ramirez, F. O. (2011). Student-Centeredness in Social Science Textbooks, 1970-2008: A Cross-National Study. Social Forces, 90(2), 547-570.
4. Dale, R. (1999). Specifying globalization effects on national policy: a focus on the mechanisms. Journal of Education Policy, 14(1), 1-17.
5. Dale, R. (2000). Globalization and education: Demonstrating a ‘‘common world educational culture’’ or locating a ‘‘globally structured educational agenda’’? Educational Theory, 50(4), 427–448.
6. Gonzalez, E. & Miles, J. (2001). TIMSS 1999 User Guide for the International Database. Chestnut Hill: MA.
7. Gorur, R., & Wu, M. (2014). Leaning too far? PISA, policy and Australia’s ‘top five’ ambitions. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 1-18.
8. Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: the PISA ‘effect’ in Europe. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 23-37.
9. Grek, S. (2013). Expert moves: international comparative testing and the rise of expertocracy. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 695-709.
10. Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2012). Do better schools lead to more growth? Cognitive skills, economic outcomes, and causation. Journal of Economic Growth, 17(4), 267-321.
11. Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2016). Knowledge capital, growth, and the East Asian miracle. Science, 351(6271), 344-345.
12. Hegarty, S. (2014). From Opinion to Evidence in Education: Torsten Husén’s Contribution. In A. Nordin & D. Sundberg (Eds.). Transnational policy flows in European education: the making and governing of knowledge in the education policy field. Oxford, UK: Symposium books.
13. Hopmann, S. T., Brinek, G., & Retzl, M. (Eds.) (2007). PISA zufolge PISA: Hält PISA, was es verspricht? / PISA according to PISA: Does PISA keep what it promises? Vienna: LIT Verlag.
14. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6.
15. Johansson, S. (2016). International large-scale assessments: what uses, what consequences? Educational Research, 58(2), 139-148.
16. Keeves, J.P. (1972). Educational environment and student achievement. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.
17. Komatsu, H., & Rappleye, J. (2017). A new global policy regime founded on invalid statistics? Hanushek, Woessmann, PISA, and economic growth. Comparative Education, 53(2), 166-191.
18. Koretz, D. (2002). Limitations in the Use of Achievement Tests as Measures of Educators’ Productivity. Journal of human resources.
19. Leung, F. K. S., & Li, Y. P. (2010). Reforms and issues in school mathematics in East Asia: sharing and understanding mathematics education policies and practices. Rotterdam; Boston: Sense Publishers.
20. Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., Thomas, G. M., & Ramirez, F. O. (1997). World Society and the Nation‐State. American Journal of Sociology, 103(1), 144-181.
21. Meyer, J.W., Kamens, D., & Benavot, A. (1992). School knowledge for the masses: World models and national primary curricular categories in the twentieth century. London: Falmer Press.
22. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Goh, S., & Cotter, K. (Eds.) (2016). TIMSS 2015 Encyclopedia: Education Policy and Curriculum in Mathematics and Science. Retrieved from Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center website:
23. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén and Muthén.
24. Ozga, J. (2012). Governing knowledge: data, inspection and education policy in Europe. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 10(4), 439-455.
25. Pettersson, D. (2008) Internationell kunskapsbedömning som inslag i nationell styrning av skolan. [International knowledge assessments: an element of national educational steering] Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala Studies in Education No 120. Uppsala universitet: Uppsala.
26. Phillips, D., & Ochs, K. (2004). Researching policy borrowing: Some methodological challenges in comparative education. British Educational Research Journal, 30(6), 773-784.
27. Robitaille, D.F. and Garden, R.A. (1989). The IEA study of mathematics II. Context and outcomes of school mathematics. Oxford: Pergamon.
28. Rutkowski, L., & Rutkowski, D. (2009). Trends in TIMSS responses over time: evidence of global forces in education? Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(2), 137-152.
29. Sahlberg, P. (2006). Education Reform for Raising Economic Competitiveness. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 259-287.
30. Samuelsen, K. M., & Dayton, M. C. 2010. Latent class analysis. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
31. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Valverde, G. A., Houang, R. T. and Wiley, D. E. (1997). Many Visions, Many Aims: A Cross-National Investigation of Curricular Intentions in School Mathematics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
32. Simola, H. (2005). The Finnish miracle of PISA: historical and sociological remarks on teaching and teacher education. Comparative Education, 41(4), 455-470.
33. Spring, J. (2008). Research on Globalization and Education. Review of Educational Research, 78(2), 330-363.
34. Stacey, O., Lazzari, G. D., Grayson, H., Griffin, H., Jones, E., Taylor, A., & Thomas, D. (2018). The Globalization of Science Curricula: Springer International Publishing.
35. Wang, J., & Wang, X. (2012) Structural Equation Modeling: Applications using Mplus: Methods and Applications. West Sussex, UK: Higher Education Press.
36. Winstanley, C. (2012). Alluring Ideas: Cherry Picking Policy from Around the World. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 46(4), 516–531.
37. Wiseman, A. W., Astiz, M. F., & Baker, D. P. (2013). Comparative education research framed by neo-institutional theory: a review of diverse approaches and conflicting assumptions. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 44(5), 688-709.
38. Zhao, Y. (2012). Flunking Innovation and Creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 94, 56-61.