As has been well-established elsewhere (e.g. Clarke, et al., 2006), classroom activities situated in different cultures are subject to very different affordances and constraints and privilege different outcomes. Similarly, different cultures and school systems have different perspectives on the nature of mathematics and the purpose of mathematics education. This may change over time in response to broad social, political and technological changes (Hoyles, et al., 1999). As education becomes inevitably globalised in its conceptualization and practice, studies of curriculum must incorporate culture as either a frame for any claims or as an integral element of any investigation.

Among many other goals, the promotion of student mathematical thinking is one of the most important curricular objectives for school mathematics in many countries. Mathematics thinking skills, such as problem solving, conjecturing, and modelling, are regarded as the priority areas for student development in mathematics (e.g. Clarke, et al., 2007). In this study, we compare the ways in which mathematical thinking is framed in curricula from Australia, China, and Finland. We seek to address these two research questions: (i) what is “mathematical thinking” for each curriculum? (ii) how mathematical thinking is supposed to be taught in classrooms in the three cultural settings?

In this study, we use official curriculum guidelines as a surrogate for the intended curriculum. Curriculum guidelines such as national or state curriculum standards embody the expectations and the outcomes that an educational system aspires to achieve. The comparison of these intended curricula across the three cultures allows us to identify similarities and differences in terms of the implicit views about the nature of mathematics and the nature of mathematical thinking that each education system attempts to promote. Such an analysis represents a first step towards understanding the international differences in curricular aspirations and how these might connect with the classroom realisation and assessment of valued performances.

Clarke, D., Goos, M., & Morony, W. (2007). Problem Solving and Working Mathematically: an Australian Perspective. ZDM Mathematics Education, 39, 475-490. Clarke, D., Keitel, C., & Shimizu, Y. (Eds.). (2006). Mathematics Classrooms in Twelve Countries: the insider's perspective. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Hoyles, C., Morgan, C., & Woodhouse, G. (Eds.). (1999). Rethinking the Mathematics Curriculum. London: Falmer Press. Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the Content of Instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Rsearcher, 31(7), 3-14. Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J. L. (2001). Defining, Developing, and Using Curriculum Indicators: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.