Boesen Et Al. (2014) - Developing Mathematical Competence

Journal of Mathematical Behavior 33 (2014) 72–87
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Journal of Mathematical Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmathb
Developing mathematical competence: From the intended to

the enacted curriculum
Jesper Boesen a,∗ , Ola Helenius a,c , Ewa Bergqvist b , Tomas Bergqvist b ,
Johan Lithner b , Torulf Palm b , Björn Palmberg b
a
University of Gothenburg, Sweden
b
Umeå University, Sweden
c
Örebro University, Sweden
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: This study investigates the impact of a national reform in Sweden introducing mathematical
Available online 9 November 2013 competency goals. Data were gathered through interviews, classroom observations, and
online surveys with nearly 200 teachers. Contrasting to most studies of this size, qualitative
Keywords: analyses were conducted. The results show that teachers are positive to the message, but
Mathematical competence
the combination of using national curriculum documents and national tests to convey the
Interpretation of competency goals
reform message has not been sufficient for teachers to identify the meaning of the message.
Reform
Learning opportunities Thus, the teachers have not acquired the functional knowledge of the competence message
Classroom observation required to modify their teaching in alignment with the reform. The results indicate that
Teacher interviews for complex reform messages, such as the competency message, to have intended impact
Conceptual belief change on classroom practice, special attention needs to be put on the clarity of the message. To
have high-stakes tests, for example, does not alone seem to be sufficient.
© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Mathematics teaching is often regulated by some form of governing text through a curriculum or a set of standards.
Because ideas about mathematics education are affected by educational, philosophical, and political positions, standards
and curricula are changed over time (Ernest, 1991; Niss, 1981). Naturally, stakeholders in this process have great interest
in seeing the intentions behind the standards or curricula influence the educational outcome (Ellsworth, 2000). The U.S. is
implementing the Common Core State Standards (www.corestandards.org). Australia is in a similar position, and recently,
India implemented their National Curriculum Framework in mathematics (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting
Authority, 2011; National Council of Educational Research and Training, 2005). Additionally, many countries with longer
traditions of national standards, including Norway and Sweden, have recently implemented new national standards.
Our research investigates the impact of goals roughly similar to the NCTM process standards (NCTM, 2000) mediated
through Swedish national curricula documents and national mathematics tests since 1994. Our studies were conducted in
2009 and 2010 meaning that teachers from a pure time perspective had ample possibility to absorb and implement the goals.
Classroom activities, including each single task performed by any student, were analyzed in terms of their relation to the
goals. Further, we conducted interviews with each teacher regarding their goals for student learning and how they viewed
the goals expressed in the national curriculum documents and in national tests. The teachers also completed a survey. The
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 709706968.

E-mail address: jesper.boesen@gu.se (J. Boesen).
0732-3123/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2013.10.001
J. Boesen et al. / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 33 (2014) 72–87 73
data collection was conducted in cooperation with the Swedish School Inspectorate.1 The schools chosen for inspection
represented large and small schools, rural and city areas, and large and small municipalities. We believe that our results
accurately represent Sweden as a whole concerning how a reform message, 15 years after the initiation of the reform, can be
said to permeate teachers’ goals and practices. Hence, this study presents an important example of using national curriculum
documents and national tests as carriers for a reform message. The present article is largely based on two 60-page technical
reports published in Swedish (Bergqvist et al., 2010a, 2010b).
1.1. Reforms for change?
Questions of how policy changes affect classroom practices have been frequently addressed, either in the form of qual-
itative classroom studies (see e.g., Ball, 1990), in system-wide research based on teacher attitude surveys coupled with
assessment outcomes (see e.g., Cohen & Hill, 2000, 2001), from a theoretical perspective (see e.g., Gregoire, 2003), and with
empirical support (see e.g., Charalambous & Philippou, 2010). Despite approaching the problem in different ways, all four of
these examples paint a complicated but fairly coherent picture of the relation between policy and practice. Whenever the
reform message is of a more complicated nature, the effects on teacher beliefs and classroom practice generally deviates
from the intended. In general, it seems that if a curriculum includes content goals, such as arithmetic, then arithmetic is
indeed taught, but if the curriculum includes competency goals, such as problem solving ability, then the effect on teaching
may vary significantly. A commonly described mechanism behind this is that teachers only pick up surface aspects of the
reform message and interprets these in terms of their own beliefs instead of actually changing their beliefs and their teaching
(Ball, 1990; Charalambous & Philippou, 2010; Cohen, 1990; Frykholm, 1996; Grant, Peterson, & Shojgreen-Downer, 1996).
Later in this article we describe how a theoretical and psychology-based model by Gregoire (2003) is applied to analyze how
such a situation can occur and to identify the psychological motives (and subsequent actions) needed for a teacher to truly
change conceptually.
Cases in which curriculum change did in fact lead to changes in teaching seem sparse, but Cohen and Hill (2000) note that
when the state and several professional organizations, such as the NCTM and its California affiliate, home-office curriculum
developers, university schools and departments, and others, all worked toward a similar goal, the results were positive.
However, even then, only 15–20% of the teachers achieved a level of “coherent relationships among teachers’ opportunities
to learn, their practice, school curriculum and assessments, and student achievement” (Cohen & Hill, 2000, p. 331). However,
conversely, it is not enough for a system to be more homogeneous. Cyprus can be regarded as a highly centralized system in
which mandatory curriculum and textbooks are used. Nonetheless, a reform in Cyprus did not achieve the intended impact,
and in fact, some teachers even claimed to be more comfortable teaching problem solving using pre-reform approaches
rather than the recommended reform techniques (Charalambous & Philippou, 2010).
As Cohen and Hill (2000) point out, there are many aspects of a system that affect whether a message in a curriculum
text affects the teachers or not. One tool to consider is national or state mandated tests. The underlying assumption is that
by designing the tests so that they reflect important curricula goals the teachers will revise their teaching to make it more
aligned with the tests. This assumption is however not thoroughly investigated in large-scale empirical studies (Cimbricz,
2002; Mehrens, 2002). In particular, it is not clear under what conditions such tests have a formatting function concerning
a complicated message such as one associated with mathematical competency.
1.2. What reform?
A common feature of all the standards or curricula mentioned in Section 1 is that they present an enriched view of what
it means to know mathematics. However, in what sense is this feature new and can be considered a reform?
Mathematics can be described as an autopoietic system in the sense that it produces the objects it discusses (Maturana
& Varela, 1980; Sfard, 2008; Varela, Maturana, & Uribe, 1974), which means that the act of being mathematical (Mason,
Burton, & Stacey, 1982) or doing mathematics (Schoenfeld, 1994) is scarcely separable from the act of studying or using
mathematical structures. Traditional curriculum messages mainly specified the mathematical structures (notions, concepts,
theories, methods, results) that should be studied, with little reference to the practice of mathematics (Hoffmann, 1989).
During the 1990s, however, a clear trend emerged: the curricula now aimed to clarify the relationship between mathematical
content and practice to make the development of a sound mathematical practice an explicit curricular goal. In Freudenthal’s
words,
Every researcher, every producer of mathematics will readily admit that mathematics is an activity. (Freudenthal,
1991, p. 14)
1
The Swedish School Inspectorate (SSI) is an agency of the government that has three main tasks: asserting the right of each individual to knowledge
and personal development in a safe environment in school, asserting national equivalence, and contributing to higher national educational standards.
The Inspectorate works in different ways: regular inspections of all schools, thematic quality evaluation within certain areas, investigations of complaints
concerning the situation for a specific child/student, and approval of independent schools. The collaboration between SSI and the researchers came about
due to SSI having the need for specific mathematics education expertise in this thematic quality evaluation.
74 J. Boesen et al. / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 33 (2014) 72–87
[. . .] the learner should reinvent mathematising rather than mathematics, abstracting rather than abstractions,
schematising rather then schemes, formalising rather then formulas, algorithmising rather then algorithms, verbal-
ising rather than language – let us stop here, now that it is obvious what is meant. (Freudenthal, 1991, p. 49)
The influential work Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics, hinges on the principle that “[. . .]
knowing mathematics is ‘doing’ mathematics” (NCTM, 1989, p. 9). The Strands of Mathematical Proficiency and the Process
Standards in the two U.S. publications Adding it Up (Kilpatrick, Swafford, & Findell, 2001) and Principles and Standards for
School Mathematics (NCTM, 2000), respectively, are two examples of constructs that build on such ideas. Another example is
the Danish Mathematical Competency Framework (Niss & Jensen, 2002). Frameworks for international comparative studies,
such as TIMSS and PISA, incorporate similar constructs (Mullis et al., 2003; Neubrand et al., 2001; OECD, 1999), with the
latter being a particularly distinct example. The national curricula of many countries have also picked up on these ideas,
with Norway, China, and Singapore as a few of many examples (Kunskapsdepartementet, 2010; Ministry of Education of the
People’s Republic of China, 2004; Singapore Ministry of Education, 2007).
Retrospectively, these ideas have a certain top-down flavor, with inspiration perhaps coming from developments in the
areas of the ontology and epistemology of mathematics (Hoffmann, 1989; Lakatos, 1976, 1978; Pólya, 1954; Schoenfeld, 1994;
Steen, 1988) and from social constructivist ideas of teaching and learning mathematics (Bishop, 1985; Ernest, 1991, 1998;
NCTM, 1989; Restivo, 1988), rather than from a grass roots teacher movement. Moreover, while the motives behind the above
referenced frameworks are often complex, it is clear that they intend to break with a traditional teaching of mathematics
associated with mainly practicing procedures and instead communicate a richer view of what doing mathematics means.
Hence, it makes sense to assume that for most teachers, the concept of formulating specific goals about the process of doing
mathematics represents a major shift of attention concerning the intended focus of the teaching of mathematics in school:
a reform. We will denote these types of goals as competence goals.
The relevant Swedish national curriculum documents for primary and secondary school were published in 1994, with the
upper secondary school documents revised in 2000 (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2001a, 2001b). The writing of
the mathematical parts of these documents was influenced by the NCTM Standards (Emanuelsson, Johansson, & Lingefjärd,
1992), and references to competence goals can be found throughout the national curriculum documents (Palm, Eriksson,
Bergqvist, Hellström, & Häggström, 2004). Although previous curriculum documents also mentioned problem solving, the
documents from 1994 still represented a reform in terms of broader competence goals. However, the curriculum documents
are intentionally designed to leave scope for local school and professional interpretation of the aims and content of the
subject. For example, the central notions of the competencies (problem, reasoning, communication and so on) are included
but not defined, explained, or exemplified. The intention is that the participants working in the education system should
thoroughly analyze the curriculum documents by interpreting and discussing them and that this process should increase the
quality of the teaching and learning in the schools. The national tests measure all the competencies, and each competence
is required in several tasks (Boesen, 2006). Based on their results from the national tests, students receive a test grade. The
teachers assign the final course grade, which is based on both the national test result and other achievements made during
the course, such as the performance on teacher-made classroom tests. However, the national tests are often considered as
the main foundation for teachers’ grading since it covers the whole course. The course grades from lower-secondary school
are used for admission to upper secondary-school programs, and course grades from upper-secondary school are used for
admission to the university. There are no direct sanctions or rewards for the teachers or schools as a direct consequence of
the students’ national test results, but teachers’ salaries may be based on their general performance and the schools may
benefit from good test results when recruiting new students.
Fifteen years after the introduction of the competence goals in Sweden we will still conceptualize it as an ongoing reform
not only in national curricula documents and tests, but also in other aspects such as textbooks, assessment, teaching, teacher
education and policy. Our results will also show that it makes sense to think about the reform in terms of a continuous struggle
rather than something that happens right when the ideas are introduced.
2. Mathematical competencies: a framework
We begin by defining what we mean by mathematical competence and specific mathematical competencies.
To possess a competence (to be competent) in some domain of personal, professional or social life is to master (to a fair
degree, modulo the conditions and circumstances) essential aspects of life in that domain. Mathematical competence
then means the ability to understand, judge, do, and use mathematics in a variety of intra- and extra-mathematical
contexts and situations in which mathematics plays or could play a role. [. . .] A mathematical competency is a clearly
recognizable and distinct, major constituent of mathematical competence (Niss, 2003, p. 6).
The main purpose of publications such as the KOM-project (Niss & Jensen, 2002), Adding it Up (Kilpatrick et al., 2001)
or the NCTM Standards (NCTM, 2000) is to communicate goals and means for educational development. These frameworks
are, however, not ideally suited for the analysis of empirical data because the descriptions of the competencies are often
overlapping and sometimes not precisely defined. To this end, the Mathematical Competency Research Framework (MCRF)
was developed with inspiration from these frameworks (Lithner et al., 2010). On a general level, the competencies coincide
with the process standards in NCTM’s Standards (2000) except for the addition of procedural competency, but in the MCRF,
the individual competencies are defined to be more separated and less overlapping. To enable the researcher to clearly
identify competencies in different practical incarnations, the MCRF also include the competency-related activities (CRAs),
namely:
(I) Interpret. Taking in information in relation to the competencies.

(II) Do and use. Using one’s knowledge to solve tasks. The distinction between do and use is that do concerns developing
knowledge within mathematics as a scientific discipline, and use concerns applying this within and outside mathematics.
We also consider two main versions of this activity: (a) imitate and (b) construct (see Lithner, 2008).
(III) Judge. Meta-level considerations such as evaluating, reflecting, and forming opinions and conclusions on mathematics
and on the activities related to learning, understanding, doing and using mathematics.
The descriptions of the CRA’s for each of our six competencies comprises a key element of the MCRF. Here however, we
will only describe each competency briefly and refer to Lithner et al. (2010) for the full description of corresponding CRA’s.
2.1. Problem solving competency
Problem solving is “engaging in a task for which the solution method is not known in advance” (NCTM, 2000, p. 51). This
definition implies that in this perspective, there are only two types of mathematical tasks: problems and non-problems.
The latter are often denoted “routine tasks” or “exercises” (Schoenfeld, 1985; Weber, 2005). Note that some aspects often
included in similar definitions of problem solving are not included in this one, for example that the task must be a challenge
(Schoenfeld, 1985) or that the task requires exploration (Niss & Jensen, 2002).
2.2. Reasoning competency
Reasoning is the explicit act of justifying choices and conclusions by mathematical arguments. This definition is based
on a selected part of the definition of reasoning in the NCTM (2000): “to develop and evaluate mathematical arguments
and proofs” (p. 55). In addition, this definition particularly focuses on the reasoning being explicit, in line with an idea from
Niss and Jensen (2002) in which the reasoning competency is intimately connected with problem solving and modeling
as the so-called juridical counterpart. We further define arguments to be mathematically founded if they, in the terms
used by Lithner (2008), motivate why the conclusions are true or plausible and are anchored in intrinsic properties of the
mathematical components (objects, transformations, and concepts) involved in the reasoning. Reasoning does not have to
be logically strict but, for example, may be plausible in line with Pólya (1954). A proof is a sequence of reasoning in which
the mathematical arguments are logically strict.
2.3. Procedural competency
A mathematical procedure is a sequence of mathematical actions that is an accepted way of solving a task. There are no
definitions of the concept of procedure in either of the NCTM Standards (NCTM, 2000), the KOM project (Niss & Jensen,
2002), or Adding it Up (Kilpatrick et al., 2001). The above definition is inspired by ordinary dictionaries (e.g., the Cambridge
Dictionary). An additional component in the definition is that a procedure is or can be reformulated as an algorithm, which
is “a finite sequence of executable instructions which allows one to find a definite result for a given class of problems”
(Brousseau, 1997, p. 129).
2.4. Representation competency
Mathematics is built on abstract mathematical entities, for example, numbers, functions, geometrical objects, tasks,
methods, principles, concepts, phenomena, and ideas, and their properties. When we do mathematics, we must think about
these entities and their relations or about some aspects of them. It is often impossible or at least very difficult to think about
such an entity in abstract and/or fully general terms, and it is usually advantageous to think about something more concrete
(mental or real) that replaces the abstract entity but still carries the aspects of the entity that are useful and relevant for
the particular situation. A representation is therefore defined to be a concrete mental or real replacement (substitute) of an
abstract mathematical entity.
2.5. Connection competency
The concept of connection is defined similarly in different dictionaries: to place or establish a relationship (Merriam-
Webster online dictionary); when something joins or is joined to something else, or the part or process that enables this
(Cambridge online dictionary). Here, connection is to use something that makes a link between two things, for example, a rela-
tionship in fact or a causal or logical relation. Following the discussion about the representation of entities, the “something”
that is connected is a representation or an entity (including a part or a sub aspect of a representation or entity).
2.6. Communication competency
To communicate is to engage in a process in which information is exchanged between individuals through a common
system of symbols, signs, or behavior. Therefore, communication includes a sender and a receiver, and a medium within
which both can understand the communicated information. Within mathematics education, the sender usually is the teacher,
the textbook author, or a student, while the receiver is most often a student or a teacher, and the medium is usually auditory
(e.g., speaking, listening) or physical (e.g., writing, gestures).
3. A model for the relationship between teachers’ interpretations of reform messages and their teaching
A model supposed to account for teachers’ reactions to an educational reform must acknowledge that a teacher might
well claim (and believe) to be teaching in accordance with the reform, whereas observations indicate the contrary (Ball,
1990; Cohen, 1990). Gregoire (2003) reviews research on this phenomenon and builds on other models of conceptual belief
change to create her cognitive-affective model for conceptual change (CAMCC) with this very insight at its core. A central
distinction is made between two ways of processing information: heuristic and systematic processing. The idea stems from
Piaget and the distinction between thinking based on experience and thinking based on reflective abstraction (Piaget, 1980).
The model builds on the following assumptions grounded in psychology research (see Gregoire, 2003 for a more elaborate
discussion):
1. The systematic processing of information requires greater cognitive effort than does heuristic processing.
2. The systematic processing of information requires motivation and ability (Eagly and Chaiken (1993) present a review of
psychology research supporting these claims).
3. What gets noticed (in the environment in general or in this case, in a reform message) is influenced by the individual’s
prior goals and beliefs (Fazio, 1986).
4. A threat to an individual’s (professional) identity can motivate change to occur (Schlenker, 1982).
5. Implementing a reform message, such as the NCTM Standards, is a difficult process for teachers (Brosnan, Edwards, &
Erickson, 1996) and requires systematic processing if a true belief change is to occur (Gregoire, 2003).
6. Initial benign or positive appraisals of a reform serve as a cue to promote predominantly heuristic processing (Mackie &
Worth, 1991; Schwarz, Bless, & Bohner, 1991).
Our simplified version of Gregoire’s model is illustrated by the flow chart below.
The starting point in the model is the presentation of a reform message. If the teacher interprets the message and concludes
that her identity (her self) is not affected by the message, this conclusion automatically associates with a positive or benign
(neutral) appraisal and a lack of motivation for systematic processing of the message. With only heuristic processing, the
only possible outcomes are either a superficial assimilation of the message or no belief change at all, depending on prior
beliefs and experiences (Chaiken, Liberman, & Eagly, 1989). The route on the right side of the flow chart represents this chain
of events.
When the individual perceives the message as affecting the individual’s identity, the result is psychological stress (Lazarus
& Folkman, 1984). Depending on motivation and ability factors, the stress can either be a feeling of threat or a feeling of
challenge. Challenge is a cue for an intention to approach the message and process it systematically (by different means).
Based on systematic processing of the reform message, a deliberate choice of either yielding toward or away from the
message is possible. However, threat is a cue for avoiding systematic processing of the message. The end result is heuristic
processing followed by no belief change or superficial assimilation, as in the case in which no initial stress is present (Eagly
& Chaiken, 1993; Gregoire, 2003). In the following sections, we refer to the model above as the CAMCC framework.
4. Research questions
The aim of the present study is to investigate the relation between the intentions of the competence reform and the
implementation of the competence reform in Swedish classrooms. We operationalize this in terms of two research questions:
What impact has the competence reform had on the mathematics teaching practice in Swedish classrooms?
Since the reform concern goals for learning, the effect should ultimately be measured in terms of learning outcomes.
However, the relationship between what students learn (the learned curriculum) and what is enacted in the classroom (the
implemented curriculum) is very complex (Robitaille & Garden, 1989). Due to this, we focus on students’ opportunities to
learn (McDonnell, 1995) and investigate this by means of classroom observations of activities that through the MCRF can be
related to the six mathematical competencies.
The second research question concerns possible mechanisms behind the impact:
How can the impact of the competence reform be explained?
The mediation between the competence reform intentions and enactment of it in the classrooms largely goes through
the teacher. The principal communication of the reform message is through the national curriculum documents and the
national tests. We therefore investigate the teachers’ reactions to the competence goal message in the national curriculum
documents and the national tests. This is done by means of teacher interviews and questionnaires that are designed and
analyzed with help of the CAMCC framework.
5. Method
Data were collected through observing lessons, writing structured field notes, collecting textbooks and other texts used
in the classroom, performing interviews with teachers, and an online survey to the same teachers. The development of
clusters of questions for the interviews and questionnaires and the procedures for classroom observations and text analyses
are all based on the research questions and the frameworks presented above. Seven researchers (the authors) and twelve
additional experts were involved in collecting the data 2009–2010. These experts were either researchers or Ph.D. students
who received special training in the data collection procedures.
5.1. Sample selection
The selections of schools were based on stratified random sampling and carried out by the Swedish Schools Inspectorate
(SSI). The principle was to include schools from all of Sweden, rural and urban districts, small and large schools as well as
high-performing and low-performing schools. The selection comprised 82 teachers at 23 schools from the compulsory level
and 145 teachers at 53 schools from the upper secondary level. One researcher did not have the possibility to complete the
procedure, and 26 teachers (interviews and observations) were therefore excluded from the study. Due to technical problems
7 other interviews and 4 observations were left out, so in total the data consists of 197 observations, 194 interviews and in
addition 178 completed questionnaires. Each school’s principal made the selection of teachers. The instruction was not to
choose teachers based on performances, but to arrange a schedule during the days which the researcher was present at the
school.
5.2. Lesson observations
A researcher observed each lesson using an observation protocol that included taking notes on the teacher’s actions
and statements and the students’ responses, taking photos of blackboards and of student notebooks, and recording which
tasks each individual student was working on during the lesson. Copies of teacher handouts, teacher-made tests and lesson
plans were also collected. The analysis included dividing the lesson into distinct episodes comprising coherent mathematical
activities. The episodes were sorted in types A–D according to student involvement:
(A) The teacher provides some type of information (to the whole class or a large group) that is not directly related to tasks
that the students work on during the observed lesson.
(B) The teacher provides information (to the whole class or a large group) that is supposed to be used later in tasks that
the students individually (including small group) work on during the observed lesson. This can also include a few short
questions to the students.
(C+/−) The teacher leads a task-solving session in a large group or with the whole class (C− if the teacher takes the
majority of initiatives, C+ if the students do).
(D) The students engage in tasks individually or in small groups.
For each of the six competencies, it was decided whether the three competency-related activities of interpret (I), do and
use (II) and judge (III) were present or not in each coherent mathematical episode. Each task performed by any student
was analyzed in the same way. Because the episodes could be of different length and involve different numbers of students,
each episode received a weight proportional to the length of time that the situation lasted and to the number of students
involved. The total sum of all the episodes’ weights equals the lesson’s length. Each competency-related activity type that
was present in a given episode was rewarded the same weight as that episode. A total weight (time) for each CRA-type over
the lesson as a whole was calculated by summing over all episodes in the lesson.
It is important to note that for each episode, a particular competency-related activity needed only to be present one
single, possibly very short, time to receive a weight score equal to the whole time of the episode. Thus the amount of time
within each episode that was devoted to each competency does not influence the results. Moreover, the analysis was done
in an inclusive rather than exclusive way. For example, any talking about a mathematical matter meant the episode scored a
communication CRA. If a task in the textbook was of a kind that there were no similar examples or other templates provided
by the teacher or the book, the task was categorized as a problem solving activity. Similarly, all tasks in the textbook where
the students had to interpret a text were categorized as addressing the communication competence. To categorize a task as
needing the reasoning ability, the main criterion was that the students were prompted to justify the answer. In the same way
the representation ability is addressed every time a student must take the meaning of a representation into consideration,
for example interpret a table or a diagram. A task where the students had to connect more than one representation was
categorized as addressing the connections ability, for example a task including both a graph and a table. These examples
show that it is in fact difficult for a task not to address any of the non-procedural competencies. The method is hence designed
to include also elementary competency-related activities, rather than only advanced or high-level teaching.
A final note concerns our decision to give the same weight to each task that a student work with, despite that in real life
some tasks might take longer time than others. Obviously, one reason for this is the practical difficulty of measuring the
amount of time that each student devotes to each individual task. A risk might be that our decision skews our measurement,
by for example underestimating the time spent on more complex problems that might contain more competencies. We
suggest that this risk is relatively low, since simpler tasks tend to have several subtasks in the format a–b, a–d or a–f,
meaning that that the whole task still often take more time. To further indicate how the analysis is conducted, we will
present two examples of lessons.
Example 1. The 64-min long lesson was divided into four separate episodes.
1. The teacher leads a discussion on mean values and medians, 6 min. This part involves all students, carrying a weight of
6 min. The teacher reasons about the concepts of mean and median and presents the procedures for calculating means
and medians. The teacher presents this verbally and by writing on the blackboard, so there is communication from
the teacher to the students present. The students also answer some questions from the teacher. Analyses using the
MCRF reveal elements of reasoning, procedure and communication activities that all receive a score of 6 min. No other
competency-related activities are present. The episode is categorized as type C−.
2. All students work with a worksheet on means and medians, 23 min. This part also involves all students and carries a 23-min
weight. The tasks mainly involve procedures, but some involve the conceptual aspects of mean and median, and the
solution requires reasoning. Some tasks are open, and it is a new field to the students, so not all procedures are previously
known to them. Thus, the episode involves problem solving. In this episode, reasoning, procedure and problem-solving
competencies receive a 23-min score. The episode represents type D.
3. The teacher and the students discuss some tasks, 5 min. This part involves all students and carries a 5-min weight. Mainly,
students present ideas and reason about the problems, but with weak connections to the concepts and procedures involved
and with little guidance from the teacher. In this episode, reasoning and communication competencies receive a 5-min
score. The episode represents type C+.
4. Individual student work in textbooks, 30 min. In the last 30-min session the 14 students in the class work on a total of 62
tasks spread over 10 distinct tasks. Each single task is handled as one episode and to simplify the analysis, it is assumed
that each task takes the same amount of time. A single task performed by a single student thus corresponds to 30/62 min.
The tasks were divided in three categories (all of type D). Five tasks required only procedural competency. In total,
the students performed 53 such tasks with a score of 53*30/62 = 25.6. Three tasks performed by a total of 6 students
required reasoning and procedural competency, leading to a 6*30/62 = 2.9 min score for those competencies. One task
performed by 3 students required both problem solving and procedural competencies, leading to a 3*30/62 = 1.5 min
score for those competencies. Overall, this means that procedural competency is present in episodes corresponding
to 6 + 23 + 25.6 + 2.9 + 1.5 = 59 min (92% of the lesson). Reasoning competency is present in episodes corresponding to
6 + 23 + 5 + 1.5 = 35.5 min (55%). Problem-solving competency is present in episodes corresponding to 23 + 2.9 = 25.9 min
(40%). Communication competency is present in episodes corresponding to 6 + 5 = 11 min (17%). The connection and
representation competencies are not present in this lesson.
Example 2. The 58-min long lesson was divided into three separate episodes.
1. The teacher discusses organizational issues, related to how to work in groups and presents a real world style problem
that contains no mathematical information. No competency-related activities are involved. The episode is 6 min long and
is classified as type C−.
2. The students work in groups for 41 min on a task whose solution method was not given or known to them, that is, a
problem. The problem involved placing bushes in line with tiles around them where the number of tiles depends on
the number of bushes, as illustrated by a picture. The problem leads the students to constructing equations that they can
solve routinely; hence they also get opportunity to practice procedures. Connections need to be made between the picture
of the tile arrangement and to different mathematical representations, hence both connections and representations are
involved. Reasoning is involved since the task stated that reasons for how the problem is solved are to be clearly stated.
Since the students work in groups, there is communication about mathematical matters going on. Overall, the episode
provides opportunities to develop all six of the MCRF competencies, that all get a 41-min score. The episode is of type D.
3. The 11 min long final episode comprises the teacher leading a session where the students present and discuss their work
on the problem. The session revolves around communication. Procedures, connections, reasoning and problem solving
are discussed by presenting groups and the teacher while the rest get opportunities to interpret. Similarly as in Episode
2, students get opportunities to develop all six MCRF competencies.
Overall, this means that each of the six competencies are present in episodes corresponding to 41 + 11 = 52 min (90% of
the lesson).
5.3. Interviews
After each observed lesson an approximately 90-min long structured interview was conducted with the teacher. The first
of three parts treated the teachers’ own goals and the influences on their teaching, without guiding the interview toward
competency goals. This part included questions such as: What do you want your students to learn? How do you work to
achieve that? Have your goals for students learning and ways of achieving them changed over the years?
In the second part, the teachers were asked to interpret six excerpts from the national curriculum documents.2
For example, the following was included to probe how teachers interpreted an excerpt related to the reasoning
competency.
The school in its teaching of mathematics should aim to ensure that pupils develop their ability to understand,
carry out and use logical reasoning, draw conclusions and generalize, as well as orally and in writing explain
and provide the arguments for their thinking. (Skolverket (The Swedish National Agency for Education), 2008,
p. 23)
Teachers were asked to give their interpretation of the quote, and subsequently how they interpreted the word reasoning.
Teachers were also shown four tasks from the national tests and were asked what a student needed to know to be able
to solve the task. The task below is an example from the national test in mathematics year 5, 2003. The task was chosen to
illustrate representation, connection and in applicable cases problem-solving competencies.
In part three, the interviewer presented the MCRF definitions of the six competencies and exemplified them by using the
same curriculum document excerpts and tasks used in part two. The teachers were then asked about their views and beliefs
concerning how the competency goals, now explicitly defined and exemplified, related to their own teaching. By using this
method to create a common understanding we lessened the risk of talking about different phenomena while believing we
were talking about the same (Speer, 2005).
To locate and characterize the teachers’ statements concerning mathematical competence in the interview transcripts, a
system using competency indicators was developed. Every utterance was examined to see if it contained something related
to the competency goal reform. We searched not only for the special terminology associated with the used competency
framework but also for any synonyms and other indications that the teacher was considering competency-type goals
(perhaps without referring to a specific competency). Because the MCRF involves one among many possible choices of
terminology, a teacher’s statement using the word “communication” was not valued higher than a corresponding statement
using related words, for example “talk mathematics” or “discuss mathematics.” Each statement containing a competency
indicator was classified according to the following criteria: spontaneity (was the reference to a competency a result of
a direct question or not?), clarity (was the utterance clear or vague?), and value (was the competency mentioned in
positive, neutral, or negative terms). A general assessment of the teachers’ disposition toward the competency goals as
positive, neutral, or negative was based on the whole interview, but mainly on the value classification of the competency
indicators together with the answer to a specific question: “Is it important that the students develop the six competen-
cies?” Further, it was determined whether the competency indicators concerned a competency in connection to some
particular mathematical content (local), whether it illustrated that competencies have meaning for any mathematical con-
tent (global) or both. It was also noted whether the utterance concerned a lesson activity, a goal for student learning or
both.
The teachers’ displayed knowledge and awareness concerning competency goals during the interview was categorized
as one of three qualitative categories: non-existent; limited; and functional. The assessment was in essence qualitative in
nature, but heavily assisted quantitatively by the competency indicator and characterization system.
Teachers that had few competency indicators of any kind were placed in the category non-existent knowledge. They
did not spontaneously mention the competencies, they mostly avoided them even on direct questions, and they did not
mention the roles of the competency (or similar) goals. Teachers with an extensive amount of competency indicators that
also displayed important insights in the meaning of the competency goals were placed in the category functional knowledge.
They expressed utterances pertaining to the global character of the competencies, but also exemplified some of them in
2
For both compulsory and upper secondary school, the Swedish national curriculum consists of two parts. The first includes fundamental values, goals,
and guidelines for the school in general. The second states the goals for each individual subject. In this study we focus on the second part for both school
levels. These documents are very compact and short, approximately 5 pages each. They are organized using the following headlines: Aim of the subject and
its role in education, Goals to aim for, Structure and nature of the subject, Goals to attain, and Grading Criteria. There is nothing explicit on how teaching
should be carried out, only what goals the student should reach at the end of the education.
relation to some particular (local) mathematical content. They also mentioned the competencies’ nature as goals as well as
exemplified some of them in terms of a concrete activity. The middle category, limited knowledge, included teachers who
expressed some of the competencies quite clearly, but throughout the interview failed to treat key aspects like local-global
and goal-activity. For example, it includes teachers that displayed knowledge of the meaning of the competencies but did
not regard the competencies as goals for learning. Another example is teachers that talked about the competencies on a
general level but failed to give a single example of any concrete activities where some competency could be expressed, was
required, or could be developed. In addition to the competency indicators, the teachers’ spontaneous goals, their valuing of
the goals, their interpretation of the role of the national curriculum document as well as national tests, their processing of
the curricular message, and their beliefs about teaching were also assessed.
The procedure is exemplified by a few answers from two teachers. When shown the excerpt from the national curriculum
document above, Christine, a secondary teacher, answered.
There are a lot of things to be interpreted in that. But if we take it backwards, this is what we did earlier today in class,
to orally argue for their solution. Explain why, in written form . . . what they did as a preparation for this task. Draw
conclusions . . . in situations where they should reach . . . something to argue . . . from their calculations for example.
When questioned about how she interpreted the word reasoning she answered.
To think towards something . . . reason . . . discuss towards something, not necessarily towards an answer.
When discussing the question on what students needed to know to work out the task from the national test presented
above Christine responded:
Students have to have number sense, being able to distinguish between ones, tens and hundreds, seeing and recog-
nizing patterns and to know our position system.
Christine sees a competency as a goal (they should be able to explain. . .) and she can also relate it to a concrete activity
(referring to what they did earlier in class). In her interpretation of the word reasoning, she indicates that reasoning can
be applied to any mathematics, not just something particular (global). In the reference to the lesson (discussed earlier
in the interview) she refers to a concrete piece of mathematics where the student should use written arguments (local).
Christine’s answers throughout the interview were similar to these. She was overall clear in her comments and her responses
were both a result of direct questions, as in the meaning of the word reasoning, and contained spontaneous reflections about
competency-type goals and activities. Christine is one example of a teacher that was assessed as having functional knowledge
of competency goals.
Turning to another secondary teacher, Anna, the response to the same excerpt from the national curriculum text was:
Well, this is what it is all about, what they need to get by in life, kind of obvious I think.
On how she interpreted the word reasoning she answered.
Own lines of thought, not necessarily talk. This makes sense.
When discussing the question on what students needed to know to work out the task from the national test presented
above she answered.
To know the position system and the meaning of each position.
Anna’s response to the curriculum excerpt is vague and does not include any explanations pertinent to competency
goals. When asked about the word reasoning, she responded in a short but reasonable way. The comment on the national
test task relates only to content type goals. This pattern was representative for Anna’s answers in the interview. She
gave occasional interpretations of some competency goals when asked directly about them but she referred neither to
local nor global aspects of the competency goals, and made no clear distinctions between goals or activities. She seemed
to be positive toward the goals expressed in the quote. Anna was assessed as having limited knowledge of competency
goals.
5.4. Questionnaire
The questionnaire contained 85 questions, which mainly dealt with teachers’ interpretations, perceptions, and opinions.
Most of the questions were written in the form, “To what extent. . .,” and the options were numbered 1 (very little or equiv-
alent) to 6 (very much or equivalent). After every ten questions, the teachers had the opportunity to comment on the earlier
questions. The questions were linked to a number of constructs developed from the CAMCC framework (Gregoire, 2003).
Some questions concerned the extent to which teachers were confident on how different parts of the national curriculum
were intended to be used and the extent to which they felt they understood the formulations in the curriculum document.
Groups of questions also addressed the teachers’ beliefs in their ability to help their students develop the six competencies,
teachers’ feelings about the national curriculum document and national tests, and their epistemological beliefs concerning
mathematics.
Table 1
The proportion (%) of minutes for each CRA (I: interpret, II: do and use, III: judge) for all competencies in each episode type A–D. The bottom line shows
the proportion of the total number of minutes where at least one CRA type of each competency is present.
Minutes % Type Problem solving Reasoning Representation Connection Communication Procedural

competency competency competency competency competency competency
I II III I II III I II III I II III I II III I II III
433 4 A 2 0 0 9 0 0 9 2 0 2 0 0 11 2 0 8 4 0
1386 13 B 15 11 10 22 15 4 41 26 2 43 24 3 44 26 2 51 36 5
1594 15 C− 21 32 11 34 36 9 50 36 9 48 48 10 38 53 4 56 59 7
714 7 C+ 53 53 18 48 63 20 48 40 3 47 39 9 61 68 3 41 56 12
6496 61 D 26 28 2 13 22 4 28 29 2 26 32 2 24 24 2 44 84 3
25 27 4 19 25 5 34 29 3 32 33 4 31 30 2 45 69 5
10,623 100 All
29 32 41 44 42 79
6. Results
6.1. What impact has the reform had on the mathematics teaching practice in Swedish classrooms?
The first research question investigates in what ways the teaching provides students with opportunities to develop the
mathematical competencies, especially the five non-procedural competencies in relation to the procedural competency.
Students’ competency-related activities during totally 10.623 min in 197 mathematics lessons are presented in Table 1.
The clearest result from the classroom observations is that opportunities to develop procedural competency is present
in episodes corresponding to 79% of the total time observed (the bottom line, to the right) and hence the dominant activity.
Opportunities to develop the non-procedural competencies are present in 29–44% of the time (left). Looking more closely, the
tables show that the most common competency-related activity is do and use procedures. This result is visible in the second
last row where CRA II for procedural competency occurs in episodes that cover approximately 69% of the total observed
time. The corresponding figures for CRA I and II for all other competencies are 19–34%, and 45% for CRA I for procedural
competency. The competency-related activity III (judge) is for each competency found in episodes corresponding to 2–5% of
the total time. This is in itself a notable result, but we will not delve deeper into it in this article. In addition, and not visible
in the table, during 35% of the total time there were no trace of the non-procedural competencies at all. The dominating type
of episode (approximately 60% of the total time) is type D, where students solve tasks individually or in small groups. This is
also the type of episode where procedural competency is most dominating. In addition, and not visible in the table, during
almost half of the D episode time there is no trace of the other five competencies. The tasks that the students work with
during type D episodes were mainly from their textbooks (70% of the D type episode time) but also from handouts provided
by the teachers.
6.1.1. Conclusions regarding the impact of the reform on the teaching

Since we have no data from before the presentation of the reform message in 1994 we cannot compare and see if
practice have changed, so our reasoning has to build on other arguments. Obviously, it is a challenge to answer such a
general question based on large-scale classroom data on the level of learning opportunities given to individual students.
This is however also the strength of our method: we do not rely on simple classroom observations of how things “look,”
nor on what teachers say about their practice. Every episode encountered by any student is analyzed in detail in terms of
competency-related activities. So our task is to explain, in terms of how much competency-related activities of different
sorts we have identified, if this represents a break with a tradition of mainly teaching procedures or not. And in simple
terms, this could be answered by noting that procedural competency is present in episodes responding to almost twice
as much time as each of the other competencies. Hence we conclude that the tradition has not been broken. In this line
of reasoning, it is important to remember that, in terms of “time on task” the individual competency-related activities are
overestimated in the sense that even relatively trivial instances of for example representation activities in an episode will
make the representation-CRA get a score equal to the time of the whole episode. Even so, episodes corresponding to 35% of
the time contain only competency-related activities related to practicing procedures. This in itself is a strong indication that
practicing procedures has a dominant role in the classroom.
But there are also other ways of reasoning, more fundamental in relation to the intentions of the reform as well as to the
nature of doing mathematics that the competence-goal system is intended to reflect. Let us start by discussing why teaching
focused on practicing procedures will in many cases also contain elements of the five non-procedural competency-related
activities. Practicing procedures is a wider notion than just doing calculations. A teaching focused on mainly practicing
procedures includes the well-known, and almost defining, situation of traditional mathematics pedagogy where a teacher
first demonstrates or leads a discussion on a template task and the students later practice tasks similar to the template
task (Stigler & Hiebert, 1997). Obviously, such a task will often include mathematical representations and connections.
The presentation and discussion will contain elements of reasoning and communication. Any non-trivial variation of the
template task encountered by the students will show up as problem solving in our analysis. Typical textbooks often include
template tasks and solutions followed by similar tasks for students to work on, so also in extended sessions where students
work in a textbook, elements of non-procedures will show up in a similar way. In fact very few tasks apart from carrying out
a bare, and well-known, calculation can avoid containing also some non-procedural competency activities with the method
of analysis used here. Still, as stated above, episodes corresponding to more than one third of the time did not include any
competency-related activities other than those related to practicing procedures.
Example 1 in Section 5.2 could be a typical such lesson. The teacher presents some procedures for calculating the mean
and median values of a sequence of numbers, and the tasks that the students work with in subsequent episodes focus on
the same type of calculations in relatively standard situations. Yet, the analysis finds competency-related activities related
to problem solving in episodes corresponding to 40% of the time, to reasoning in 55% of the time, and to communication
in 17% of the time. Activities related to practicing procedures were present in episodes corresponding to 97% of the time.
On a philosophical level, this is unsurprising given the autopoietic character of mathematics. Whenever mathematics is
engaged, even if it is the process of practicing procedures, it is hard to fully avoid the spectrum of competency-related
activities.
In Example 2 in Section 5.2, activities related to each of the six MCRF competencies appear in episodes correspond-
ing to 90% of the lesson. This lesson is a classic problem solving session, similar to what is described by Stein, Engle,
Smith, and Hughes (2008). There seems to be no particular intention to “teach” any of the competencies apart from per-
haps problem solving but yet opportunities to develop each of the six MCRF competencies appear throughout the lesson.
Naturally, there are many different ways of teaching a lesson that would be aligned with the intentions of the compe-
tence reform, and we cannot account for them all. But as described in Section 1, the competency reform is grounded
in an idea of working mathematically, as for example expressed by Freudenthal (1991). In competency frameworks
(Kilpatrick et al., 2001; NCTM, 1989, 2000; Niss & Jensen, 2002) the individual competencies are described as parts of a
whole, as exemplified by “the intertwined strands of proficiency” (Kilpatrick et al., 2001, p. 117). It hence makes sense to
assume that teaching episodes that honor these intentions would score high on activities related to all or most compe-
tencies. The result for the 10.623 min of observed lessons presented in Table 1 does not add up to that. It is reasonable
to conclude that the examined teaching in general is consistent with a teaching defined by a very strong dominance of
practicing procedures rather than teaching that is in line with the intentions of the competence-reform message we are
examining.
6.2. How can the impact of the competence reform be explained?
Our conclusion above is that the reform has not had the intended impact. We formulate three sub-questions of research
question 2 reflecting basic ideas in the CAMCC framework: In order to implement the reform message the teacher has to
(A) see the message as important, (B) systematically process and identify the meaning of the message, and (C) change her
beliefs about goals and means of teaching in line with the message. After the three sub-questions are examined, we answer
research question 2.
(A) What are the teachers’ attitudes toward the reform message?
Teachers who are confronted with the message make either a systematic or a heuristic processing, before deciding
whether to yield to the message or not (Gregoire, 2003). The outcome of a heuristic processing is determined by the teachers’
prior beliefs and experiences. The teacher will yield if these are in line with the message (Gregoire, 2003, p. 166). Similarly,
for teachers to yield when performing systematic processing, “the message should be perceived as intelligible, plausible,
and fruitful for promoting students’ learning” (Gregoire, 2003, p. 168). Therefore, yielding teachers have views that are in
line with the message, at least according to their own evaluation, and are not negative toward it. They will therefore see
it as important that the students get the opportunity to develop the competencies. Teachers who have not yielded will be
negative toward the message.
After the presentation of the six competencies, 87% of the 194 teachers responded to a direct question that it is important
that the students develop the six competency goals. Although 13% of the teachers seemed indifferent and 1% skeptical toward
the competencies, no one expressed that the goals are unimportant. This question might be biased due to the collaboration
with the Swedish Schools Inspectorate, but when also considering the general assessment of the teachers’ disposition toward
the goals, the result remains. Less than 1% of the teachers were placed in the category negative, almost 57% in the category
positive, and approximately 43% were assessed to be neutral. Our conclusion is that most of the teachers have yielded to the
reform message in some way.
(B) Have the teachers systematically processed and identified the meaning of the reform message?
Systematic processing is “a comprehensive, analytic orientation in which perceivers access and scrutinize all informa-
tional input for its relevance and importance to their judgmental task, and integrate all useful information in forming their
judgments” (Chaiken et al., 1989, p. 212; see also Gregoire, 2003, p. 159). A central feature of the CAMCC framework is
that systematic processing is regarded as necessary for lasting belief change (Gregoire, 2003, p. 150). This study therefore
maps indications of systematic processing in the teachers’ own descriptions of their work with the goals. Indications of
teachers’ systematic processing: their view of competencies and/or curriculum documents have changed over time; they
view curriculum documents as factors that affect their teaching; and they have been working with trying to understand the
competency goals.
For 62% of the 194 teachers, there exists none of these indications that they have systematically processed the competency
message. For 24% of the teachers, there are one or a few indications. A few teachers, 14%, showed many and clear indications
of systematic processing. Some of these teachers described that they worked with the national curriculum documents
by reading them many times and also discussed them with colleagues, for example when constructing local curriculum
documents, during in-service training, or during regular collegial cooperation. Still, reading the curriculum documents
frequently does not guarantee systematic processing. For example, one teacher with few indications had trouble interpreting
an excerpt from the national curriculum documents: “I haven’t looked at this so carefully before. You read it many times but
you don’t think so closely about what it actually says.”
If the reform message is to be implemented in schools, it is necessary that the teachers also manage to identify the
meaning of the message. We therefore examine whether the teachers make reasonable, clear, and nuanced interpretations
of excerpts from the national curriculum documents, and whether they produce reasonable, clear, and nuanced descriptions
of the type of knowledge students need to solve national test tasks. For more than 60% of the teachers, their interpretations
were reasonable, that is, their descriptions concerned some type of competency-type goal or activity, not only mathematical
content, and to some extent coincided with interpretations based on the MCRF. However, their interpretations were often
vague and many teachers had problems formulating their interpretations using abstract terms and rather gave examples of
tasks or situations connected to the excerpt. Many also partly repeated the wording in the excerpt when trying to explain a
concept, for example, one teacher interpreted ‘reasoning’ as “to be able to reason (. . .).” Most interpretations were also quite
limited and not very nuanced, that is, they focused on narrow aspects of the competencies. One example is a teacher who
interpreted “communicate mathematics” as to “be able to use words like multiplication.” Many teachers seemed unused
to interpreting the curriculum documents, expressed doubt concerning how to interpret the text, and a few asked the
interviewer for confirmation of their interpretation.
When asked what the students needed to know in order to solve the four selected national test tasks, it varied greatly
for how many tasks the teachers made reasonable interpretations, that is, not only mentioned mathematical content but
also touched upon some kind of competency-type description. A quarter of the teachers do not mention competencies at
all, while 15% makes a reasonable interpretation of one of the tasks. Two tasks are reasonably interpreted by 16% of the
teachers, and 3 by 25%. The last group, 19% of the teachers, makes reasonable interpretations in connection to all tasks. In
total, 56% of the teachers make reasonable interpretation for at most half of the tasks. One conclusion is that the teachers
do not focus on the same type of aspects when discussing required knowledge for task solving. Also, only a handful of the
teachers present clear descriptions of the students’ needed knowledge in abstract terms, such as “they have to have some
kind of language to use when explaining” (communication). It was more common that the knowledge was described as
activities during task solving, for example that in order to solve this specific task they have to “find a strategy to be able to
carry on” (reasoning). Just as for the excerpts, the teachers’ descriptions in general concerned very limited aspects of the
competencies. For example, “they have to know the words for these geometrical figures” (communication), and “patterns
in general, they have to have worked with patterns” (connections). Some teachers say that tasks in the national tests differ
from textbook tasks, for example by requiring more “original thinking” or by testing several goals simultaneously, but most
find it problematic to express the differences in clear terms.
Some of the teachers interpret competency goals through a particular form of assimilation that we call filtering. This
means that the competency goals are interpreted in ways that are in line with a preferred goal of the teacher, sometimes
leading to interpretations that are far from the intentions of the national curriculum. The teacher’s preferred goal could be
an affective goal (e.g., that the students should be confident), a particular competency goal, or any other type of goal (e.g.,
everyday math). One of the most common ways of filtering is through the competency goal communication. One example
of filtering is a teacher whose two main teaching goals seem to be “abstract thinking” and the “ability to use mathematics.”
He repeatedly returns to these goals when interpreting excerpts and tasks. Also when asked to clarify other goals that he
mentions, he often refers to his two main goals. For example, when asked to clarify the word “understand,” he replies after
some hesitation “to use in an everyday context.” In addition, his explanation of what he means by “abstract thinking” is also
rather vague: “there is not so much information given, you have to make your own assumption, and formulate it.”
Our conclusion is that most of the teachers have not made a systematic processing of the reform message and also,
based on the teachers’ varying, vague, and limited interpretations of both the excerpts and the tasks, that few teachers have
identified the meaning of the reform message.
(C) Have the teachers made a belief change in line with the message?
The goal of the reform is that teachers break with the tradition of teaching mathematics as mainly practicing procedures,
and formulate goals for the students’ learning that concern the process of doing mathematics. According to Gregoire (2003),
such a change of the teachers’ practice can only take place if they make a true belief change. It might obviously be possible
for a teacher to teach in accordance with the competency goals due to inspiration from other sources than the national
curriculum documents. However, it is highly unlikely that a teacher changes her or his teaching in accordance with the
competency goals without functional knowledge of the goals, since the competency goals are novel and intended to break
both with traditions concerning how goals are formulated and with existing teaching traditions. We therefore see functional
knowledge as a prerequisite for cognitive change. Furthermore, a teacher who has made a belief change has yielded to
the message after systematic processing, which means that s/he has decided that it is important that the students get
the opportunity to develop the competencies. The competencies, in particular the non-procedural ones, should therefore
be part of the teacher’s own goals for teaching mathematics. Based on this rationale, we have particularly examined the
following two aspects: whether the teachers have functional knowledge of the competency goals, and intentions, whether
the competency goals are a part of the their own goals for teaching mathematics.
Of the 194 teachers 18% displayed functional knowledge, 55%, displayed limited knowledge, and 28% displayed non-
existent knowledge of the competency goals. One of the clearest conclusions is therefore that few teachers have functional
knowledge of the competency goals, which is required for belief change.
When asked for their own goals for students’ learning, 44% of the teachers spontaneously mentioned at least one non-
procedural goal of competency type (not necessarily the competencies in the MCRF), often using vocabulary like “talk
mathematics,” “logical thinking,” or other general formulations. However, approximately half of these teachers mention only
one such competency type goal, which means that only around 20% of the teachers mention more than one (non-procedural)
competency type goal. Still, when the teachers later were presented definitions of the six competencies, many teachers
expressed that the competency goals are aligned with their own goals, for example by stating that there are “competencies
in all mathematics.” These interpretations are reasonable but often seem superficial, for example, one teacher said: “Now
that we have talked here, I believe that I follow them [the MCRF competencies]. This is automatically included. Without
seeing it, it is there.” This type of vague statement is a sign of assimilation of the message.
In summary, only 18% of the teachers have functional knowledge of the competency goals and around 20% have intentions
for teaching that include more than one competency goal. We therefore conclude that less than 18% of the teachers have
made a true belief change.
6.2.1. Conclusions
So how can the impact of the competence reform be explained? Although there is some variation in the aspects ana-
lyzed above there are clearly predominating answers to the sub-questions A–C that might on the surface seem somewhat
contradictory. On the one hand many teachers are positive to the reform, believe the message is important, and think that
their teaching is in line with the message. On the other hand they have problems identifying the meaning of the message,
have not processed the message systematically, have not functional knowledge, and do not teach in line with the reform.
However, all this is consistent with the path of benign-positive appraisal, heuristic processing, and assimilation of message
in the CAMCC framework (the path ending to the right in Fig. 1), that is, the model explains why teachers can be positive
and believe they are implementing the message without actually doing so.
Fig. 1. Gregoire’s model in a simplified flowchart.

7. Discussion
A conclusion in this study is that the way the mathematical competence reform has been implemented has not been very
successful. Fifteen years after the reform was initiated the classroom practice is still dominated by carrying out procedures.
There are several factors that may hinder an impact of a reform attempt. For example, teachers may not perceive that
resources, such as time and support, are sufficient for a successful systematic processing of the message and for developing
teaching that is aligned with it (Charalambous & Philippou, 2010; Gregoire, 2003). It may also be difficult and a slow process,
even in a supportive environment, to develop such teaching (Schoenfeld, 2010). But the reason that comes out strongly in
this study is the teachers’ difficulties in identifying the meaning of the message of mathematical competencies conveyed in
the national curriculum documents and the national tests.
The difficulties in identifying the message may be connected to the way the goals are presented. The competence goals
are presented explicitly in the national curriculum documents, but in a rather vague way. This vagueness is represented in
two ways. Firstly, concepts pertaining to the competencies are not very well described, which has the consequence that they
are difficult to interpret. Secondly, the concepts are embedded along with many other types of goals and purposes, which
makes the importance of the competence goals somewhat unclear. This means that the teachers’ professional identity may
not be affected by a lack of focus on these specific goals. As a consequence many teachers seem to have made a heuristic
processing and just assimilated the message and carried on teaching in a similar way as before, content with the belief that
their teaching is in alignment with the national curriculum documents.
The national tests also carry the message since different tasks require different competencies for their solution, and the
solution requirements are spread over the competencies (Boesen, 2006). But a problem seems to be that this message is
implicit since it is embedded in what is required to solve the tasks. A common suggestion to boost reform is to use high-stakes
tests to assist curriculum documents. Proponents of such tests as a vehicle for implementing reform argue, “what you test
is what you get.” The underlying assumption is that these tests influence what the teachers do, so by designing the tests
so that they reflect the curricula goals teachers will revise their teaching to make it more aligned with the tests. Empirical
evidence backing this as a general conclusion is however lacking (Cimbricz, 2002; Mehrens, 2002). It seems that such tests
influence practice under certain conditions, but not under others. For example, in some circumstances the tests may affect
the choice of content, but this does not necessarily mean that the teaching practice is affected in other ways (Firestone,
Mayrowetz, & Fairman, 1998; Grant, 2000, 2001). In the present study we see that the conditions given to teachers were not
sufficient for affecting practice with respect to competency-related activities. Some teachers thought that the tests had some
impact on content. But even though they did notice that the national test tasks were somewhat different than the tasks in
the textbooks, most of them could not pinpoint the characteristics of the differences more than on a surface level. So since
they did not see exactly what the test tasks were aiming at they could not revise their teaching practice accordingly. From
this it also follows that the stakes of the tests was probably not a decisive factor, since the stakes does not make it more
possible to identify the message. Thus, for external tests to be a vehicle for implementing a complex reform message, such as
the competence reform, they may have to be complemented by other ways of clearly specifying how the reform message in
the curriculum documents have been operationalized in the tests. It could be noted here that the Swedish National Agency
of Education every now and then releases the secrecy of a national test, so the teachers have several tests available to look
at. In addition, the tests are accompanied by a categorization of the tasks in competence categories. This does not seem to
have been sufficient.
Another way of assisting curricula reform is by in-service training. This was also included in the activities of the Swedish
teachers when the reform was launched. At every school the teachers were expected to spend time together formulating local
interpretations of the curriculum documents for every subject, including mathematics. However, these activities were not
directed at specific parts of the curriculum. The teachers could perform the activities as they saw fit, in some cases guided by
their principals. Thus, teachers who did not experience their superficial interpretation of the competence message as a threat
to their professional identity may very well have spent their time focusing on other aspects of the curriculum documents
than the competence message. It seems that in schools where a lot of time has been spent on these activities, sometimes
including reading other documents about the reform and involving external experts, this has led to examples of impact on
the classroom practice. However, as a whole, in the absence of guidance on how to identify and interpret the terminology
and the idea of the reform, these teacher discussions do not seem to have been sufficient to enhance teachers’ understanding
of the reform message. It may be that lack of reform expertise in the discussions has been an inhibiting factor for acquiring
sufficient functional knowledge of the competencies through these discussions.
It thus seems that when a reform message is presented in a non-conspicuous way and terms that are difficult to interpret,
like problem solving and reasoning, are not clearly defined and operationalized they are easily filtered and assimilated in an
interpretation that coincides with the way teaching is already performed. This has been exemplified with individual teachers
before (Ball, 1990; Cohen, 1990), and with larger samples using questionnaires and teacher logs (Charalambous & Philippou,
2010). But the present study is based on data from nearly two hundred teachers fairly representative of a whole nation, and
both questionnaires and more in-depth qualitative approaches, such as interviews and classroom observations, have been
used to collect data. Based on this data the study indicates that assimilation of the message is a widespread phenomenon
and a significant hindrance for reform realization.
In summary, if we want a complex reform message to have real impact in our classrooms, teachers need sufficient
conditions and knowledge to successfully work with how to interpret and teach in accordance with the message. One part
of these conditions is how the message is presented. Our study shows how decisive the presentation of a complex reform
message is for the reform to have an impact on classroom practice. Characteristics of a non-sufficient presentation (including
national curriculum documents and national tests) are described. The analysis was carried out on a national reform including
ideas similar to the NCTM Standards. The ideas of competency goals are spreading into national curricula in many places
around the world (see Section 1). Thus, the conclusions may be useful for several countries working with similar reforms.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this research was provided by the Swedish Research Council and Riksbankens Jubileumsfond.
References
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2011). Australian curriculum online – Mathematics. Retrieved from
http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Mathematics/Rationale
Ball, D. (1990). Reflections and deflections of policy: The case of Carol Turner. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 263–275.
Bergqvist, E., Bergqvist, T., Boesen, J., Helenius, O., Lithner, J., Palm, T., et al. (2010a). Matematikutbildningens mål och undervisningens ändamålsenlighet:
Grundskolan. Göteborg: Nationellt centrum för matematikutbildning och Umeå forskningscentrum för matematikdidaktik.
Bergqvist, E., Bergqvist, T., Boesen, J., Helenius, O., Lithner, J., Palm, T., et al. (2010b). Matematikutbildningens mål och undervisningens ändamålsenlighet:
Gymnasieskolan. Göteborg: Nationellt centrum för matematikutbildning och Umeå forskningscentrum för matematikdidaktik.
Bishop, A. J. (1985). The social construction of meaning: A significant development for mathematics education? For the Learning of Mathematics, 5(1), 24–28.
Boesen, J. (2006). Assessing mathematical creativity: Comparing national and teacher-made tests, explaining differences and examining impact. Umeå: Depart-
ment of Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics, Umeå University.
Brosnan, P. A., Edwards, T., & Erickson, D. (1996). An exploration of change in teachers’ beliefs and practices during implementation of mathematics
standards. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 18, 35–53.
Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman,
& J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). New York: Guilford Press.
Charalambous, C., & Philippou, G. (2010). Teachers’ concerns and efficacy beliefs about implementing a mathematics curriculum reform: Integrating two
lines of inquiry. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(1), 1–21.
Cimbricz, S. (2002). State-mandated testing and teachers’ beliefs and practice. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(2) http://epaa.asu.edu/
ojs/article/view/281
Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311–329.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294–343.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT, USA: Yale University Press.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Ellsworth, J. B. (2000). Surviving change: A survey of educational change models. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology.
Emanuelsson, G., Johansson, B., & Lingefjärd, T. (1992). Matematikämnet i skolan i internationell belysning. Mölndal, Institutionen för ämnesdidaktik,
Avdelningen för matematik, Göteborgs universitet.
Ernest, P. (1991). The philosophy of mathematics education. London: Falmer Press.
Ernest, P. (1998). Social constructivism as a philosophy of mathematics. New York: SUNY Press.
Fazio, R. H. (1986). How do attitudes guide behavior? In R. M. Sorrentino, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social
behavior (pp. 204–243). New York: Guilford Press.
Firestone, W., Mayrowetz, D., & Fairman, J. (1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(2), 95–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/01623737020002095
Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education: China lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Frykholm, J. A. (1996). Pre-service teachers in mathematics: Struggling with the standards. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(6), 665–681.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(96)00010-8
Grant, S. G., Peterson, P. L., & Shojgreen-Downer, A. (1996). Learning to teach mathematics in the context of systemic reform. American Educational Research
Journal, 33, 509–541. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312033002509
Grant, S. G. (2000). Teachers and tests: Exploring teachers’ perceptions of changes in the New York State-mandated testing program. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 8(14).
Grant, S. G. (2001). An uncertain lever: Exploring the influence of state-level testing on teaching social studies. Teachers College Record, 103(3), 398–426.
Gregoire, M. (2003). Is it a challenge or a threat? A dual-process model of teachers’ cognition and appraisal processes during conceptual change. Educational
Psychology Review, 15(2), 147–179.
Hoffmann, K. (1989). The science of patterns: A practical philosophy of mathematics education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Kunskapsdepartementet. (2010). Laereplan i fellesfaget matematikk. Oslo: Kunskapsdepartementet.
Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakatos, I. (1978). Mathematics, science and epistemology. Philosophical papers (Vol. 2) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Lithner, J. (2008). A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(3), 255–276.
Lithner, J., Bergqvist, E., Bergqvist, T., Boesen, J., Palm, T., & Palmberg, B. (2010, January 26–27). Mathematical competencies – A research framework. Paper
presented at the mathematics and mathematics education: Cultural and social dimensions. Proceedings of MADIF-7, the seventh mathematics education
research seminar, Stockholm.
Mackie, D. M., & Worth, L. T. (1991). Feeling good, but not thinking straight: The impact of positive mood on persuasion. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Emotion and
social judgments (pp. 201–219). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Mason, J., Burton, L., & Stacey, K. (1982). Thinking mathematically. London: Addison-Wesley.
Maturana, H., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The organization of the living. Boston: Reidel.
McDonnell, L. M. (1995, Fall). Opportunity to learn as a research concept and policy instrument. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(3), 305–322.
Mehrens, W. A. (2002). Consequences of assessment: What is the evidence? In G. Tindal, & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Large-scale assessment programs for all
students: Validity, technical adequacy and implementation (pp. 149–177). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2004). Mathematics curriculum standards, full time obligatory education [Translated by Kwok-cheung
Cheung, Faculty of Education, University of Macau, China]. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Smith, T. A., Garden, R. A., Gregory, K. D., Gonzalez, E. J., et al. (2003). TIMMS assessment frameworks and specifications 2003 (2nd
ed.). Boston: International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.
National Council of Educational Research and Training. (2005). National curriculum framework. New Delhi: NCERT.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.
Neubrand, M., Biehler, R., Blum, W., Cohors-Fresenburg, E., Flade, L., Knoche, N., et al. (2001). Grundlagen der Ergänzung des internationalen PISA-
Mathematik-Tests in der deutschen Zusatzerhebung. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 33(2).
Niss, M. (1981). Goals as a reflection of the needs of society. In R. Morris (Ed.), Studies in mathematics education (pp. 1–21). Paris: UNESCO.
Niss, M. (2003). Mathematical competencies and the learning of mathematics: The Danish KOM project. Paper presented at the Third Mediterranean Conference
on Mathematics Education.
Niss, M., & Jensen, T. H. (2002). Kompetencer og matematiklaering (competencies and mathematical learning). Uddannelsestyrelsens temahaefteserie nr.
18-2002, Undervisningsministeriet.
OECD. (1999). Measuring student knowledge and skills: A new framework for assessment. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Palm, T., Eriksson, I., Bergqvist, E., Hellström, T., & Häggström, C.-M. (2004). En tolkning av målen med den svenska gymnasiematematiken och tolkningens
konsekvenser för uppgiftskonstruktion. Umeå: Enheten för pedagogiska mätningar Umeå universitet.
Piaget, J. (1980). Adaptation and intelligence: Organic selection and phenocopy (S. Eames, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pólya, G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning. Princeton, NJ: Princeton U.P.
Restivo, S. (1988). The social construction of mathematics. ZDM, 20(1), 15–19.
Robitaille, D. F., & Garden, R. A. (1989). The IEA study of mathematics. 2: Contexts and outcomes of school mathematics. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Schlenker, B. R. (1982). Translating actions into attitudes: An identity-analytic approach to the explanation of social conduct. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 15) (pp. 193–247). San Diego: Academic Press.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando: Academic Press.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1994). Reflections of doing and teaching mathematics. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking and problem solving. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2010). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. New York: Routledge.
Schwarz, N., Bless, H., & Bohner, G. (1991). Mood and persuasion: Affective states influence the processing of persuasive communications. In M. P. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24) (pp. 161–199). San Diego: Academic Press.
Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Singapore Ministry of Education. (2007). Mathematics syllabus, primary. Singapore Ministry of Education.
Skolverket. (2008). Compulsory school: Syllabuses 2000 [revised version 2008] (2nd rev. ed.). Stockholm: National Agency for Education (Skolverket).
Speer, N. M. (2005). Issues of methods and theory in the study of mathematics teachers’ professed and attributed beliefs. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
58(3), 361–391.
Steen, L. A. (1988). The science of patterns. Science Education, 240(4852), 611–616. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.240.4852.611
Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move
beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10, 313–340.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1997). Understanding and improving classroom mathematics instruction: An overview of the TIMSS video study. Phi Delta Kappan,
79(1), 14–21.
Swedish National Agency for Education. (2001a). Curriculum for the non-compulsory school system, Lpf94. Stockholm: The National Agency for Education.
Swedish National Agency for Education. (2001b). Natural science programme: Programme goal, structure and syllabuses. Stockholm: Fritzes.
Varela, F., Maturana, H., & Uribe, R. (1974). Autopoiesis: The organization of living systems, its characterization and a model. Biosystems, 5, 187–196.
Weber, K. (2005). Problem-solving, proving, and learning: The relationship between problem-solving processes and learning opportunities in the activity
of proof construction. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24(3–4), 351–360.

Boesen Et Al. (2014) - Developing Mathematical Competence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Boesen Et Al. (2014) - Developing Mathematical Competence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Boesen Et Al. (2014) - Developing Mathematical Competence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Mathematical Behavior 33 (2014) 72–87

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Journal of Mathematical Behavior

Developing mathematical competence: From the intended to

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 709706968.

1.1. Reforms for change?

1.2. What reform?

2. Mathematical competencies: a framework

(I) Interpret. Taking in information in relation to the competencies.

2.1. Problem solving competency

2.2. Reasoning competency

2.3. Procedural competency

2.4. Representation competency

2.5. Connection competency

2.6. Communication competency

5.1. Sample selection

5.2. Lesson observations

Minutes % Type Problem solving Reasoning Representation Connection Communication Procedural

I II III I II III I II III I II III I II III I II III

6.1.1. Conclusions regarding the impact of the reform on the teaching

6.2. How can the impact of the competence reform be explained?

Fig. 1. Gregoire’s model in a simpliﬁed ﬂowchart.

You might also like