An Evolution of Mathematics Curriculum

The preceding chapters have laid a foundation for understanding the uniqueness, challenges and evolving needs of mathematics education. Chapter 1 emphasised the distinct structure of mathematics curricula, traditionally focused on foundational competencies like numeracy and problem solving, but now requiring the integration of 21st-century skills such as critical thinking and digital literacy. Chapter 2 reviewed the development of mathematics curricula over a 25-year period, exposing structural gaps between intended, taught and achieved learning outcomes. Chapter 3 addressed the persistent challenges in mathematics curriculum reform, highlighting issues like curriculum overload, equity gaps and the need for adaptability, drawing on international innovations aimed at making mathematics education more relevant to students' lives.

Policy implications from the OECD’s Future of Education and Skills 2030 (E2030) curriculum analyses highlight that recent mathematics curriculum reforms emphasise teaching core mathematical concepts while fostering higher-order skills such as mathematical thinking, reasoning, creativity and real-world application, often in interdisciplinary contexts. Successful reforms necessitate flexible and forward-thinking curricula that not only address the demands of a rapidly changing world but also ensure rigorous, adaptable curriculum redesign, implementation and evaluation tailored to students' diverse needs. This chapter outlines 12 implications for mathematics curriculum reform, adapted from the E2030 project’s set of 12 guiding principles for general curriculum design (Figure 4.1). These principles have relevance across different countries/jurisdictions and are durable over time (OECD, 2020[1]).

Conceptual understanding of core mathematical concepts plays a critical role in the development of the necessary foundational knowledge students need to excel in higher-order thinking and in real-world problem solving. Conceptual understanding forms a basis for mathematical literacy, which is critical for academic, personal and professional success. The results of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) consistently show that students with a solid understanding of core mathematical concepts (e.g. number sense, algebraic thinking and geometry) perform better not only in routine problem solving but also in complex, real-world scenarios. Students who grasp core concepts are better equipped to transfer this knowledge to diverse problems or in novel contexts, making them more adaptable learners who can easily build more complex learning on top of this foundational learning (OECD, 2018[2]). As mathematical applications in fields such as data science, artificial intelligence and engineering become increasingly important, a focus on core concepts ensures that students can apply foundational knowledge in innovative and interdisciplinary ways. Curriculum reform should thus focus on building strong conceptual foundations to better prepare students for life and for careers that require flexible thinking and the creative application of mathematics (OECD, 2020[3]).

Research in cognitive science underscores that deep learning of core concepts forms the basis for more advanced cognitive processes like reasoning, critical thinking and creative problem solving. A curriculum that emphasises procedural fluency at the expense of conceptual understanding limits students’ ability to engage in meaningful problem solving, as they rely on rote memorisation rather than a deep comprehension of mathematical structures (Bransford, Brown and Cocking, 2000[4]).

Countries with top-performing education systems in PISA, such as Singapore, Finland and Japan, place significant emphasis on deep understanding of mathematical concepts in their curricula. These systems focus not just on what students learn, but how they learn, encouraging inquiry-based approaches that help students develop a robust grasp of core mathematical principles, rather than superficial procedural skills ( (National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), 2020[5])). When trying to incorporate new content and competencies deemed essential for the 21^st century, mathematics curriculum may run the risk of overload. But as findings from the OECD curriculum analyses in this report show, countries are finding strategies to revise curriculum to avoid overload, e.g. by embedding competencies in the teaching of existing content and by focusing on big ideas when selecting content. A well-designed, focused curriculum can offer greater opportunities for in-depth learning.

Coherence in mathematics curriculum can be understood in terms of vertical and horizontal connections. Vertical coherence refers to the logical progression of mathematical ideas through different grade levels. This can support students to build upon previous knowledge and progress from earlier to later grades. Horizontal coherence refers to making connections between different mathematical topics within the same grade (to support students in seeing how various mathematical concepts are interrelated) (Peters, 2024[6]; Schmidt, Wang and McKnight, 2005[7]; Morony, 2023[8]). Coherent curriculum can support students to progress in their learning from basic knowledge to deeper understanding, from concrete to abstract concepts, and from connecting specific mathematical facts to broader principles (Schmidt, Houang and Cogan, 2002[9]). It is found to be effective in improving student achievement, reducing achievement gaps, and enhancing conceptual understanding (Schmidt and Houang, 2012[10]). Clear learning progression, i.e. well-defined sequences of how mathematical concepts develop over time, is critically important for a coherent math curriculum (Jin et al., 2019[11]; Morony, 2023[8]).

Transferability refers to students' ability to apply the mathematical knowledge and skills they acquire to novel situations, both within and beyond the classroom. Research shows that students often struggle to transfer learned concepts to new contexts unless explicitly taught how to do so. Therefore, students need opportunities to engage in problem solving that requires them to adapt previously learned concepts to unfamiliar challenges, rather than relying solely on familiar procedural tasks (Bransford, Brown and Cocking, 2000[4]). For example, when students learn algebraic functions, a transferable curriculum might encourage them to apply those functions in fields such as economics, biology or engineering. This ability to extend mathematical reasoning into new domains is crucial for success across a range of academic disciplines and professional fields, from data science to architecture.

As the world becomes increasingly complex and uncertain, the ability to apply learned concepts to new or unfamiliar situations is becoming ever more relevant, and employers increasingly seek workers with transversal skills. A well-designed curriculum should intentionally create space and time for students to explore and connect mathematical ideas to new contexts or disciplines on their own initiative. Allowing this exploratory time fosters the development of flexible problem-solving skills and encourages students to think creatively about how mathematics can be used across various fields and in real-world scenarios. As such, this principle is closely related to “interdisciplinarity” and “authenticity”.

Today's global challenges and emerging careers increasingly require interdisciplinary knowledge and key cross-cutting competencies such as problem solving, critical thinking and creativity. Fields related to global challenges, e.g. data science, artificial intelligence, finance, engineering and environmental science, rely heavily on the integration of mathematics with other disciplines. For example, data scientists use statistical models and mathematical algorithms to analyse large datasets across industries like healthcare and marketing. Engineers apply calculus and physics principles to develop solutions to technological problems, while economists utilise mathematical models to forecast trends and inform policy decisions. By promoting competency-based, cross-disciplinary learning in the curriculum, students are better equipped to enter today’s labour market, developing the mathematical literacy needed to thrive in diverse fields of work (OECD, 2020[12]).

British Columbia (Canada) provides an excellent example of interdisciplinarity in their curriculum design. Conceptual ideas, known as “big ideas”, are identified within each discipline, including mathematics, and mapped in a cross-disciplinary table (see Table 2 in (OECD, 2020[3])). For instance, the concept of “change” is explored through the distinct lenses of various disciplines, such as mathematics, art, social science, geography, history and health. Each discipline approaches the concept of “change” using its unique thinking patterns, or so-called “epistemic knowledge” – for example, thinking like an artist or a mathematician. In mathematics, for example, “change” might be understood through the study of rates of change or algebraic functions, while in history or social science, it could involve analysing societal or environmental transformations. This approach not only highlights the interconnectedness of knowledge but also fosters deeper, discipline-specific thinking.

This approach supports the growing emphasis, in particular, on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) or STEAM (+Art) education, which integrates multiple disciplines to identify global and local challenges, suggest and act on solutions, to drive innovation and technological progress towards a better future. This not only makes math more relevant but also helps students understand how mathematical thinking is used in other fields to solve complex problems.

Providing students with more choice in the mathematics curriculum enhances personalisation and engagement, fostering essential skills for lifelong learning and adaptability and allowing students to align their studies with future career goals. For example, students may opt to explore specialised pathways in mathematics, such as statistics, calculus or data science, based on their interests and professional aspirations.

The E2030 curriculum analyses highlight another approach to offering relevant choices related to mathematics, via the creation of new subjects, while carefully avoiding curriculum overload. These new subjects can incorporate mathematical concepts when designed effectively. Examples include "career education, work studies and entrepreneurial education" (e.g. Estonia, Poland), "health education, well-being, lifestyle" (e.g. Hungary, Ireland), and "local and global citizenship, peace" (e.g. Northern Ireland, Mexico). Other examples are "environmental education" (e.g. Korea, Norway), "media education" (e.g. British Columbia and Ontario, Canada), and "applied design skills, technologies, informatics" (e.g. Australia, Kazakhstan) (OECD, 2020[3]).

In some cases, countries also leverage “curriculum flexibility and autonomy” to address diverse educational needs and preferences, as seen in New Zealand (Chapter 3), allowing schools to somewhat adapt the curriculum to the interests and aspirations of their students. This flexible approach, when carefully designed with effective accountability and support systems, ensures that students can pursue specialised areas of interest within mathematics, increasing their engagement in and connection to their learning (OECD, 2024[13]).

Incorporating real-world problems and scenarios into the mathematics curriculum enhances its relevance, boosts student engagement, and prepares learners not only for future careers but also to be informed and capable citizens now and in the future. Using authentic contexts from everyday life and, in particular, those requiring societal decision-making that are meaningful and significant in students’ communities, including their own school, not only help students see the practical applications of mathematics but also foster critical thinking, problem solving and transferable skills that are essential for success in today’s fast-evolving world.

Strategies include the use of inquiry-based learning where students apply mathematical concepts to solve real-world problems over an extended period of hands-on learning; integration of technologies to simulate real-world scenarios and data analysis tasks; collaboration with industry professionals, in particular, professionals using mathematics in various careers; incorporate case studies to show how mathematics is used to solve real-world issues such as environmental challenges, financial issues and urban planning; and facilitation of community-based projects, in which students can engage with their community ties (Jablonka and Bergsten, 2021[14]), including their own school, and learn to identify local problems that can be addressed using mathematical solutions. A curriculum that emphasises authenticity bridges the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application, making mathematics more meaningful and impactful for students.

Allow for various instructional methods, including digital tools, blended learning and individualised learning plans, to support diverse learners in mastering mathematical concepts. A flexible mathematics curriculum is essential for meeting the varied learning styles, paces and needs of students, while also addressing equity gaps that may hinder some learners' success. Curriculum flexibility provides schools, teachers and students themselves (to some extent) a possibility to adapt learning goals, pedagogies, assessment and learning time to suit the students’ needs (OECD, 2024[13]). For example, instead of a one-size-fits-all approach to assessment, flexibility allows for various methods of evaluation, such as project-based learning, portfolios or group assessments, in addition to traditional exams (Hayward, 2012[15]; Gardner et al., 2010[16]). This gives students who may not excel in standardised testing the opportunity to showcase their strengths through alternative means (Hong et al., 2023[17]; Clark, 2012[18]; Ozan and Kıncal, 2018[19]; Gu, 2021[20]; Müller, Mildenberger and Steingruber, 2023[21]).

Within a classroom, students often have varied levels of ability and interest in mathematics; however, all students – regardless of background or ability – should have the opportunity to learn and thrive in mathematics. Adaptive learning technologies can provide customised learning experiences, ensuring that students at all levels – whether struggling or advanced – are challenged appropriately, thereby reducing disengagement and underperformance (OECD, 2022[22]; OECD, 2021[23]).

Strategies include offering multiple pathways with various entry points; using differentiated instruction by adapting teaching methods, content and assessments to meet individual student needs; implementing formative assessment to better understand students’ needs, to inform curriculum decisions and provide targeted support; using technology to allow more adaptive learning and teaching, e.g. self-paced learning, online collaborative learning and hybrid learning.

To help close equity gaps and create a supportive, inclusive learning environment, strategies include: incorporating culturally responsive teaching, addressing math anxiety in particular for students with low self-efficacy or a fixed learning mindset in mathematics; using technology appropriately, especially for students who lack access to digital resources at home, including devices, broadband internet, etc. providing targeted support for struggling students; using “Universal Design for Learning” as a checklist, focusing on the “what” (content), “why” (motivation) and “how” of learning (pedagogies and assessment) (OECD, 2021[24]).

Alignment between mathematics curriculum, assessment, textbooks and pedagogies ensures that students experience a coherent and unified learning process. For example, when misalignment occurs – such as when teaching focuses on conceptual understanding but assessments primarily test procedural skills – students may become confused and underperform, as they are not adequately prepared for what is being assessed. To address this, possible strategies include: more formative assessments (e.g. with ongoing feedback, student reflection on their learning processes, teacher adjustment of their instruction) (Hayward, 2012[15]; Gardner et al., 2010[16]); using a more holistic evaluation system to better measure students’ readiness to apply mathematical concepts in the real world or in cross-disciplinary settings (e.g. focusing on students’ ability to reason mathematically, think critically and apply mathematics to unfamiliar contexts rather than just testing computational accuracy and procedural fluency, often assessed through high-stakes testing) (Jablonka and Bergsten, 2021[14]).

Textbooks can also play a critical role in alignment or misalignment, particularly because mathematics is often more abstract and challenging for teachers to design real-world learning materials compared to other subjects. As a result, mathematics teachers are more likely to rely on textbooks for instruction. In this context, the quality and relevance of pedagogies in mathematics can heavily depend on the quality of the textbooks used. The E2030 Mathematics Curriculum Document Analysis (MCDA) textbook analyses revealed a substantial gap between curriculum learning goals and the types of problems included in math textbooks. This gap presents an opportunity for improvement, perhaps with the use of digital textbooks, which can integrate AI and other technologies in a more interactive and connected way. Digital textbooks have the potential to help bridge the gap between learning goals and instructional materials by offering timely real-world applications, promoting key principles like "transferability," "interdisciplinarity," and "authenticity." Such resources can provide dynamic learning experiences that better align with curriculum objectives, making mathematical concepts and problems more relevant and engaging for students.

Engaging both teachers and students in the design of curriculum, instruction and assessment is crucial for creating a more relevant, motivating and effective learning experience. Teachers bring practical classroom knowledge, while students offer insights into their preferences and needs. This collaborative approach not only strengthens the overall learning process but also ensures a sense of ownership of the new curriculum by both teachers and students. This approach also ensures that inclusion and equity are considered from the outset, creating a supportive and accessible educational environment for all learners.

Indeed, British Columbia (Canada) has taken this approach to its curriculum redesign for 2019. It involved teachers, students, as well as parents, universities and business communities in the redesign process. As a result, the 2019 curriculum encourages personalised learning, where students can pursue topics in mathematics that align with their interests and future career aspirations. Mathematical reasoning and problem solving are central, and teachers are encouraged to incorporate real-life contexts into math pedagogy.

While research suggests the aforementioned benefits, some considerations are also suggested to make the process manageable and meaningful: e.g. balancing power dynamics between teachers and students (Enright and O’Sullivan, 2010[25]; Herbel-Eisenmann and Cirillo, 2009[26]); resource allocation, such as time for collaboration (Voogt, Pieters and Handelzalts, 2016[27]); and cultural sensitivity as to how to ensure all students and teachers feel “represented and valued” (Wages, 2015[28]).

Designing a curriculum that empowers students to take ownership of their learning and values their well-being fosters both academic success and personal growth. By promoting student agency, the curriculum encourages self-directed learning, intrinsic motivation and a healthy balance between well-being and doing well in academic performance.

To ensure ownership of mathematical learning, curriculum should allow students to, for example, choose problem-solving strategies and explain their reasoning, explore multiple solution paths, and create their own mathematical problem (Swan, 2005[29]). To support students to value their growth and well-being when learning mathematics, curriculum should focus on the process of mathematical thinking and reasoning rather than just getting correct answers, encourage teachers to provide growth-oriented feedback that highlights students’ improvement and effort, and design a well-aligned curriculum and low-stakes, formative assessments to monitor progress.

Delegating ownership of learning to students is found to be effective, e.g. reduced math anxiety when students feel in control of their mathematical learning; improved self-image as a competent mathematician; enhanced creativity and critical thinking in problem solving through self-directed learning, and increased persistence in the face of challenging mathematical tasks, when students learn to value their own personal growth in math (Boaler, 2016[30]).

Strategies include: implementing open-ended modelling projects where students apply mathematics to real-world situations of their choice; allowing students to create and solve their own mathematical problems, sharing them with peers; incorporating regular journaling about mathematical thinking, struggles and growth; offering various ways for students to demonstrate mathematical understanding, such as oral explanations, visual representations and written proofs; and implementing regular discussions where students share different problem-solving strategies, fostering meta-cognition and communication (Echazarra et al., 2016[31]; OECD, 2013[32]; OECD, 2023[33]).

In implementing these strategies, research indicates some challenges for consideration, such as striking a balance between the acquisition of foundational skills and the experience of exploration and creativity (Boaler, 2016[30]; OECD, 2023[34]), and changing perceptions about mathematics being a fixed-ability subject (Zhang, Chen and Li, 2023[35]; Thompson and Li, 2023[36]).

Empowering mathematics teachers with professional autonomy has shown to improve student outcomes, particularly in terms of engagement and deep learning (Liu et al., 2020[37]; Wei et al., 2019[38]). Involving teachers in decision-making processes, such as curriculum development and assessment design, fosters a sense of ownership and professional fulfilment (OECD, 2016[39]). Teachers feel empowered not only because they can make curriculum decisions in their classrooms but also because their voices are heard at the system level, ensuring that their professional experiences are reflected in broader educational reforms (Sahlberg, 2021[40]).

While teacher autonomy is essential, it must be: i) aligned with system goals, ii) balanced with system accountability, iii) considered for system capacity, and iv) supported by political and economic context (OECD, 2024[13]). Teacher agency is closely related to system capacity.

For teacher autonomy to be effective, it is critical that teachers are equipped with the necessary tools, resources and support. While flexibility grants teachers the freedom to make adjustments, they need ongoing professional development opportunities, access to collaborative networks, and appropriate instructional materials to make informed decisions. Without these supports, autonomy can lead to frustration, as teachers may feel ill-prepared to handle the full responsibility of tailoring the curriculum. High-quality professional learning opportunities provide teachers with strategies for differentiating instruction, integrating technology and applying data-driven decision-making. This (Goddard, Hoy and Hoy, 2000[41])ensures that teachers are not just given autonomy but are also equipped to use it effectively (Hargreaves and Fullan, 2015[42]). For example, research has shown that when teachers are trusted to make pedagogical decisions but are also supported through structured feedback, student learning improves (OECD, 2014[43]; OECD, 2015[44]), and regular formative assessments and feedback loops can help teachers monitor student progress and ensure that their adaptations are leading to the intended learning outcomes (Darling-Hammond and Bransford, 2008[45]; Darling-Hammond et al., 2013[46]; Darling-Hammond, 2018[47]). Also, professional development focused on differentiated instruction, the use of technology and formative assessment boosts teacher confidence in dealing with diverse classroom needs (TALIS 2018).

Teachers who collaborate and share pedagogical strategies are more likely to feel confident in their ability to positively influence student outcomes (TALIS, 2020[48]). Indeed, schools with a culture of collaboration among mathematics teachers perform better in mathematics (OECD, 2020[49]). For example, in Singapore, collective efficacy has been cultivated as a core practice among educators, promoting higher levels of student achievement and teacher satisfaction. Collective teacher efficacy, or teachers' collective belief in their ability to positively affect students, plays a significant role in student outcomes. For collective teacher efficacy to be effective, teachers must share a firm belief that their collaborative efforts are greater than individual efforts, suggesting a link to professional identify as it involves teachers seeing themselves as part of a powerful collective (Goddard, Hoy and Hoy, 2000[41]; Donohoo, 2018[50]).

Finally, there is a strong connection between teacher and student well-being, which is currently under discussion for the development of the OECD Teaching Compass. Students in schools where teachers report high levels of well-being tend to experience lower levels of mathematics anxiety and higher achievement (OECD, 2020[49]). When teachers feel valued, empowered and well-supported, they are more effective in creating learning environments that reduce student anxiety, foster engagement and encourage perseverance, all of which are key for success in mathematics. This holistic approach to education, integrating academic performance and emotional resilience, leads to improved long-term outcomes for both teachers and students.

Teacher autonomy also has a direct impact on teacher well-being. When teachers feel trusted and empowered, they are more likely to experience job satisfaction, reduced stress and a positive work-life balance. This well-being translates into better teaching practices, as motivated and fulfilled teachers are more effective in the classroom. Overall, this teacher agency approach can create more dynamic, responsive and effective mathematics curriculum that benefits students and teachers alike.

[30] Boaler, J. (2016), Mathematical Mindsets: Unleashing Students’ Potential through Creative Math, Inspiring Messages and Innovative Teaching., San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

[4] Bransford, J., A. Brown and R. Cocking (2000), How people learn, Washington, DC: National academy press.

[18] Clark, I. (2012), “Formative assessment: Assessment is for self-regulated learning”, Educational Psychology, Vol. 24/2, pp. 205-249.

[47] Darling-Hammond, L. (2018), “Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development”, Applied Developmental Science, Vol. 24/2, pp. 97-140.

[45] Darling-Hammond, L. and J. Bransford (2008), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do, John Wiley & Sons.

[46] Darling-Hammond, L. et al. (2013), Effective teacher development: What does research show?, Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.

[50] Donohoo, J. (2018), Collective Efficacy: How Educators’ Beliefs Impact Student Learning, Corwin Press.

[31] Echazarra, A. et al. (2016), “How teachers teach and students learn: Successful strategies for school”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 130, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jm29kpt0xxx-en.

[25] Enright, E. and M. O’Sullivan (2010), “’Can I do it in my pyjamas?’ Negotiating a physical education curriculum with teenage girls.”, European Physical Education Review, Vol. 16/3, pp. 203-222.

[16] Gardner, J. et al. (2010), Developing Teacher Assessment, McGraw-Hill Education.

[41] Goddard, R., W. Hoy and A. Hoy (2000), “Collective Teacher Efficacy: Its Meaning, Measure, and Impact on Student Achievement”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 37/2, pp. 479-507, https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037002479.

[20] Gu, L. (2021), “An argument-based framework for validating formative assessment in the classroom”, Frontiers in Education, Vol. 6/Article 605999.

[42] Hargreaves, A. and M. Fullan (2015), Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school, Teachers College Press.

[15] Hayward, L. (2012), Has anyone really learned anything? Assessment in the primary school, Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203115916.

[26] Herbel-Eisenmann, B. and M. Cirillo (2009), “Promoting Purposeful Discourse: Teacher Research in Mathematics Classrooms”, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics..

[17] Hong, W. et al. (2023), “A systematic review of mathematical flexibility: Concepts, measurements, and related research”, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 35/Article 104.

[14] Jablonka, E. and C. Bergsten (2021), “Addressing the divide between procedural fluency and conceptual understanding in mathematics education research”, ZDM – Mathematics Education, Vol. 53/6, pp. 1173-1189, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01309-3.

[11] Jin, H. et al. (2019), “Toward coherence in curriculum, instruction, and assessment: A review of learning progression literature”, Science Education, Vol. 103/5, pp. 1206-1234, https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21525.

[37] Liu, H. et al. (2020), “Multiple mediators in the relationship between perceived teacher autonomy support and student engagement in math and literacy learning”, Educational Psychology, Vol. 41/2, pp. 116-136, https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2020.1837346.

[8] Morony, W. (2023), “Coherence in a Range of Mathematics Curriculum Reforms”, in New ICMI Study Series, Mathematics Curriculum Reforms Around the World, Springer International Publishing, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13548-4_10.

[21] Müller, C., T. Mildenberger and D. Steingruber (2023), “Learning effectiveness of a flexible learning study programme in a blended learning design: Why are some courses more effective than others?”, International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, Vol. 20/Article 10.

[5] National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) (2020), Empowered Educators: How High-Performing Systems Shape Teaching Quality Around the World, Washington, DC: National Center on Education and the Economy.

[13] OECD (2024), Curriculum Flexibility and Autonomy: Promoting a Thriving Learning Environment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eccbbac2-en.

[33] OECD (2023), “PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education.”, OECD Publishing, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/53f23881-en/1/4/10/index.html?csp=de697f9ada06fe758fbc0d6d8d2c70fa&itemContentType=book&itemIGO=oecd&itemId=%2Fcontent%2Fpublication%2F53f23881-en.

[34] OECD (2023), “PISA 2022 Results (Volume III): Creative Minds, Creative Schools”, OECD Publishing, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/765ee8c2-en/1/1/index.html?csp=c81039763c1928b6846e6ee1fe30aefa&itemContentType=book&itemIGO=oecd&itemId=%2Fcontent%2Fpublication%2F765ee8c2-en (accessed on 7 November 2024).

[22] OECD (2022), “Innovating Assessments to Measure and Support Complex Skills”, OECD Publishing, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/innovating-assessments-to-measure-and-support-complex-skills_22731ca8-en (accessed on 7 November 2024).

[24] OECD (2021), Adapting Curriculum to Bridge Equity Gaps: Towards an Inclusive Curriculum, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6b49e118-en.

[23] OECD (2021), “OECD Digital Education Outlook 2021: Pushing the Frontiers with Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain and Robots”, OECD Publishing, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/oecd-digital-education-outlook-2021_2cc25e37-en (accessed on 7 November 2024).

[1] OECD (2020), Curriculum (Re)design: A Series of Thematic Reports from the OECD Education 2030 Project, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/edu/education-2040/2-1-curriculum-design/brochure-thematic-reports-on-curriculum-redesign.pdf (accessed on 26 September 2024).

[3] OECD (2020), Curriculum Overload: A Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3081ceca-en.

[49] OECD (2020), PISA 2018 Results (Volume V): Effective Policies, Successful Schools, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ca768d40-en.

[12] OECD (2020), What Students Learn Matters: Towards a 21st Century Curriculum, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d86d4d9a-en.

[2] OECD (2018), Curriculum Flexibility and Autonomy in Portugal - an OECD Review.

[39] OECD (2016), Teaching in Focus: Teacher Involvement in Education Reform, OECD Publishing, Paris.

[44] OECD (2015), “Education Policy Outlook 2015: Making Reforms Happen.”, OECD Publishing, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/projects/education-policy-outlook.html (accessed on 7 November 2024).

[43] OECD (2014), “TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning”, OECD Publishing, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/talis-2013-results_9789264196261-en (accessed on 7 November 2024).

[32] OECD (2013), PISA 2012 Results: Ready to Learn (Volume III): Students’ Engagement, Drive and Self-Beliefs, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264201170-en.

[19] Ozan, C. and R. Kıncal (2018), “The effects of formative assessment on academic achievement, attitudes toward the lesson, and self-regulation skills”, Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, Vol. 18/1, pp. 85-118.

[6] Peters, A. (2024), “Using the TIMSS curriculum model to develop a framework for coherence and its role in developing mathematical connections”, Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 26/2, pp. 300-324, https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2024.2371026.

[40] Sahlberg, P. (2021), Finnish lessons 3.0: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland?, Teachers College Press.

[10] Schmidt, W. and R. Houang (2012), “Curricular Coherence and the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 41/8, pp. 294-308, https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x12464517.

[9] Schmidt, W., R. Houang and L. Cogan (2002), A Coherent Curriculum: The Case of Mathematics, American Federation of Teachers, https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/media/2014/curriculum.pdf.

[7] Schmidt, W., H. Wang and C. McKnight (2005), “Curriculum coherence: an examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective”, Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 37/5, pp. 525-559, https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027042000294682.

[29] Swan, M. (2005), “Improving learning in mathematics: Challenges and strategies”, Department for Education and Skills Standards Unit. Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham.

[48] TALIS (2020), “TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II): Teachers and School Leaders as Valued Professionals”, OECD Publishing, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2020/03/talis-2018-results-volume-ii_367e0acb.html (accessed on 7 November 2024).

[36] Thompson, R. and M. Li (2023), “Growth Mindset in High School Mathematics: A Review of the Literature”, Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 13(2), 175–192, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1427934.pdf (accessed on 7 November 2024).

[27] Voogt, J., J. Pieters and A. Handelzalts (2016), “Teacher collaboration in curriculum design teams: Effects, mechanisms, and conditions”, Educational Research and Evaluation, Vol. 22/3-4, pp. 121-140.

[28] Wages, M. (2015), “Designing for cultural responsiveness”, In Designing Learning Experiences, https://oercollective.caul.edu.au/designing-learning-experiences/chapter/designing-for-cultural-responsiveness/ (accessed on 7 November 2024).

[38] Wei, D. et al. (2019), “The impact of perceived teachers’ autonomy support on students’ mathematics achievement: evidences based on latent growth curve modelling”, European Journal of Psychology of Education, Vol. 35/3, pp. 703-725, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-019-00437-5.

[35] Zhang, Y., L. Chen and H. Li (2023), “How Growth Mindset Influences Mathematics Achievements: A Study of Chinese Students”, Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1148754, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1148754/full (accessed on 7 November 2024).