Journal of Curriculum Studies

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcus20

Investigating students’ perceptions concerning

textbook use in mathematics: a comparative
study of secondary schools between Shanghai and
England

Yi Wang & Lianghuo Fan

To cite this article: Yi Wang & Lianghuo Fan (2021): Investigating students’ perceptions
concerning textbook use in mathematics: a comparative study of secondary schools between
Shanghai and England, Journal of Curriculum Studies, DOI: 10.1080/00220272.2021.1941265

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2021.1941265

View supplementary material

Published online: 22 Jun 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 123

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcus20
JOURNAL OF CURRICULUM STUDIES
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2021.1941265

Investigating students’ perceptions concerning textbook use in

mathematics: a comparative study of secondary schools between
Shanghai and England
a,b
Yi Wang and Lianghuo Fanc,d
a
Research Center for Mathematics and Mathematics Education, Beijing Normal University at Zhuhai, Guangdong,
China; bSchool of Mathematical Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China; cAsian Centre for Mathematics
Education, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China; dSouthampton Education School, University of
Southampton, Southampton, UK

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This article reports an empirical study aiming to investigate students’ use Mathematics learning;
of mathematics textbooks in Shanghai and England, with a comparative curriculum resources;
perspective. The study used mixed methods to collect the data through textbooks; middle school
student questionnaire, student focus group interview and classroom
observation. 161 Shanghai seventh- and eighth-grade students and 206
England year-seven and -eight students participated in the study. The
results indicated that there existed considerable differences between
Shanghai and England with respect to the roles that textbooks as curri­
culum resources play in students’ learning of mathematics. While
Shanghai students relied heavily on textbooks and used them in various
situations, had a strong sense of self-regulation behind the use, and
thought highly of textbooks in their learning of mathematics, English
students seldom incorporated textbooks in their learning of mathematics,
used them mainly depending on teachers’ instructions, and held
a relatively critical view of textbooks. The article also offered explanations
and discussed the implications of the results concerning the teaching and
learning of mathematics.

Introduction and rationale

Over the last few decades, educational research on various issues concerning curriculum resources,
primarily textbooks, has received increasing attention internationally in different school subject
areas such as history, science and mathematics (e.g. Behnke, 2018; Fan, Zhu, & Miao, 2013 ;
Nicholls, 2003). This is particularly evident in the field of mathematics education. For example, the
13th International Congress on Mathematics Education (ICME-13), held in Germany 2016, dedicated
a special study group (TSG38) to research on resources (textbooks, learning materials etc.), which
turned out to be one of the largest topic study groups in terms of the number of submissions (Fan,
Xiong, Zhao, & Niu, 2018). As Rezat et al. pointed out, as vital curriculum resources, ‘textbook content,
development, and use have been important themes in mathematics education research’ (Rezat, Fan,
Hattermann, Schumacher, & Wuschk, 2019, p. 3).
Among different issues concerning curriculum resources or textbooks, educational researchers,
policymakers, school leaders and teachers have increasingly realized the important role they play in

CONTACT Yi Wang 11132019624@bnu.edu.cn Research Center for Mathematics and Mathematics Education, Beijing
Normal University at Zhuhai, Guangdong, China
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 Y. WANG AND L. FAN

the actual classroom instruction, and the issue of how curriculum resources are incorporated in
teaching and learning has been a hot topic in the research of mathematics education (Schubring &
Fan, 2018). In this connection, the relationship between teachers and curriculum resources has been
explored, discussed, and studied from many perspectives, and in particular, researchers generally
agree that textbooks, as key teaching and learning resources, play an important role in the teachers’
instructional practice (Fan et al., 2018).
When it comes to the use of mathematics textbooks and their impact on teaching and learning,
researchers have conducted numerous studies from the perspectives of teachers (e.g. Grave & Pepin,
2015; Nicol & Crespo, 2006; Polly, 2017; Remillard, 2005; Sosniak & Stodolsky, 1993; Zhu & Fan, 2002),
which implies that textbooks were viewed more as a teaching resource rather than a learning
resource (Fan et al., 2004). This is because, to some extent, textbooks are expected to play a role
more in teachers’ teaching than in students’ learning, and teachers are supposed to purposefully
incorporate textbooks in their teaching while students use textbooks only when they are asked or
somehow mediated to do so, especially in primary and secondary schools. For instance, students’ use
of textbooks is taken as a result of teachers’ use of textbooks, e.g. in the studies concerning the
impact of teachers’ use of textbooks on students’ opportunity to learn in France Germany, and
England (e.g. Haggarty & Pepin, 2002).
On the other hand, with the increasing recognition of a ‘student-centred’ mode of classroom
instruction, students’ use of textbooks has attracted some attention in recent years at both school
and university levels. For example, Randahl’s (2012) research focused on the process of approaching
mathematics textbooks and the possible opportunities and constraints in students’ use of textbooks
at tertiary level, which was carried out with 90 first-year students at the engineering college of
a Norwegian university. Randhahl’s study revealed that the textbook was used to a very low degree
and mainly perceived as a source of tasks. Weinberg et al. (2012) also studied students’ use of
mathematics textbooks at undergraduate level, involving 1156 students from three universities in
the United States. The study answered which textual components students used, when and why
students looked at each component, and how students valued certain characteristics of textbooks.
Focusing on school mathematics education, Rezat (2011) challenged the view that students’ use
of textbooks always depends on teacher mediation. He pointed out that students used mathematics
textbooks not only under the guide of their teachers but also for self-directed learning (Rezat, 2009).
Specifically, he observed mathematics lessons in two German secondary schools with four classes of
students in sixth and twelfth grade for three weeks, and categorized students’ interactions with
mathematics textbooks in the process of data analysis and came up with five self-regulated learning
activities in which mathematics textbooks were incorporated in the learning of mathematics: (1)
solving tasks and problems, (2) practising, (3) acquisition of new knowledge, (4) interest-driven
activities, and (5) meta-cognitive learning activities (Rezat, 2011). Though Rezat’s studies showed
that students did not only use mathematics textbooks when their teachers told them to do so, he
stated that teacher mediation played an important role in students’ use of mathematics textbooks
and took it as a factor of students’ textbook use (Rezat, 2012). Rezat’s work clearly points to the need
for looking into the issue of textbook use from a perspective of students. Nevertheless, there have
been overall very few studies on students’ use of textbooks so far, particularly at the school levels,
with the results being largely discrete and non-inclusive (e.g. see Fan et al., 2004; Österholm, 2008;
Rezat, 2009, 2013; Schubring, Fan & Giraldo, 2018; Rezat, et al., 2019). As Fan et al. (2013) pointed out
that, compared to a large number of studies on textbook use by teachers, ‘[there is] much less on
textbook use by students. . . . Further research . . . on students’ use of textbooks is much needed’ (Fan,
et al., p. 642; also see Rezat, 2013).
This study is part of our efforts in the field of textbook research on students’ use of mathematics
textbooks from a comparative perspective, with focus on England, UK and Shanghai, China.
The reason we focused on the UK and China for our comparative study is mainly related to the fact
that, over the last ten or so years, the exchange and collaboration in education between England and
Shanghai, supported by both governments, has grown rapidly, which is particularly visible in
 JOURNAL OF CURRICULUM STUDIES 3

mathematics teacher exchange (Boylan et al., 2019) and textbook development (Fan et al., 2018).
Along with the teacher exchange, educators in both places have started noticing the differences in
the use of textbooks in England and Shanghai mathematics classrooms, and the teacher-exchange
project revealed many differences in the use of mathematics learning resources between England
and Shanghai. For example, it was noted by an English teacher who visited Shanghai mathematics
classrooms: ‘In Shanghai, every child of the same age is on the same page of the same text book at the
same time’ (Weale, 2015). Another example reported is that the whole-class activity in Shanghai,
‘opening your textbooks’, which is commonly seen in Shanghai, also surprised the English visitors
(Weale, 2015). However, there has been little research addressing the similarities and differences
concerning the role that the textbook play in the teaching and learning of mathematics, let alone
students’ use of textbooks, between these two places.
It should be noted that, in Shanghai, virtually all schools (except international schools) are
required by law to follow the same curriculum set by Shanghai municipal government; moreover,
all schools are also required to adopt the same series of textbooks which must follow the curriculum
and be approved by the government (Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, 2015)
.1 In England, all the state or local-authority-maintained schools are also required to follow the
national curriculum set by the UK government, which defines the knowledge, skills and under­
standing that must be taught and attained in each subject. However, different from Shanghai and in
fact China, the development, publication and use of textbooks do not need to be approved by the
government; teachers and schools in England enjoy much greater freedom in terms of the use of
curriculum resources, including textbooks, compared with Shanghai.
This study is guided by the following research questions:

(1) How do Shanghai and English students use textbooks in their learning of mathematics?

More specifically, the study aims to investigate the following sub-questions in terms of students’ use of
mathematics textbooks between Shanghai and England: (1) how frequently, when, for what length of time,
and for what reasons do students use textbooks in their learning of mathematics; (2) how do students get access
to mathematics textbooks; and (3) does the use of textbooks help in students’ learning of mathematics?

(1) What are the differences and similarities of students’ textbook use between Shanghai and
England?

By addressing these questions and juxtaposing the use of textbooks by students in the two places
with a comparative perspective, we hope not only to detect whether students with rather different
social, cultural and educational contexts have different patterns of using textbooks in their learning
of mathematics, but also to explore the reasons behind the use of textbooks by students in Shanghai
and England and their implications for mathematics teaching and learning.

Conceptual framework and related research

To establish a conceptual framework concerning textbook use, we started with the operational
definition of textbook. In this study, ‘Textbooks’ are the books used as a standard work for
mathematics learning, which are published by publishing houses and usually adopted or approved
by schools or governments for students to use in mathematics lessons. The ‘Use’ of textbooks refer
to the activities primarily related to textbooks in students’ mathematics learning, such as reading and
practising, which was proposed by Rezat and his colleague (Rezat & Sträßer, 2013) to obtain an in-
depth understanding of the relationship between students, textbooks, and mathematics by situating
the three elements into a triangle of student-textbook-mathematics based on the subject–artefact–
object triangle in Vygotsky’s Activity Theory (Vygotsky, 1978).
4 Y. WANG AND L. FAN

As mentioned earlier, researchers have started, to some extent, investigating the issue how
students use textbooks. Fan et al. (2004) conducted a survey involving 36 teachers and 272 students
from 12 secondary schools in China to reveal how teachers and students used textbooks within and
beyond mathematics classrooms. They looked into the following aspects of students’ textbook use,
including 1) students’ general use of textbooks (i.e. the frequency and timing of the use), 2) how
students use different parts of texts, such as ‘drill’, ‘self-test’, and ‘revision’, 3) to what extent students
think that the use of textbooks is important in mathematics learning, and 4) whether students
change their way of using textbooks from the first year to the second year in secondary schools. They
found that textbooks were the main and important resource for students in their learning of
mathematics in terms of the time that they spent on textbooks and the contents and texts that
they followed.
Weinberg et al.’s (2012) study examined which parts of the textbook students used, in which
conditions and for what purposes they used it with given items, such as ‘Read for better under­
standing’, ‘Make sense of definitions or theorems’, and ‘Look up definitions or theorems’. The study
pointed to a strong relationship between students’ perceptions about mathematics textbooks and
their textbook use, and revealed that teachers’ instructions shaped the interactions between
students and textbooks.
Similarly, Rezat’s series of studies (Rezat, 2009, 2012, 2013) also concerned why students used
textbooks in their mathematics learning. He highlighted the importance of students’ use of mathe­
matics textbooks for self-regulation and summarized five specific learning activities that students
incorporated textbooks in, including, to solve tasks and problems, to consolidate what they learned
in the mathematics class, to acquire content not taught in the mathematics lesson, to cater to their
interest in mathematics, and to echo their self-reflection of the learning in mathematics. Whereas, it
still seems unclear in terms of the notion of learning activity; for instance, interest-driven activities,
which do not always lead to the learning of mathematics but could be a reason for students to use
textbooks.
From a comparative perspective, Haggarty and Pepin (2002) and Pepin and Haggarty (2001)
examined mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French, and German classrooms. Using
data about students’ access to textbooks collected by interviewing teachers and observing class­
rooms, they revealed that in England, textbooks were provided by schools as a tradition, thus, it was
common that students used textbooks within classrooms guided by their teachers but could not
take them home, which was a different situation compared to the other two countries.
Some researchers investigated how textbook use mediates student’s mathematics learning.
Törnroos (2001) explored the connection between different mathematics textbooks and students’
achievements with the data of TIMSS 1999, and found that the average scores for the overall
mathematics achievement were not considerably different between students using different text­
books. Törnroos’s study sheds light on the impact of textbooks on students’ mathematics learning.
Lithner (2003) observed three undergraduate students’ mathematics reasoning in textbook exer­
cises, and revealed the differences and similarities between the three students’ reasoning during the
two-hour sessions that included 4 to 5 exercises each. The results showed that the intrinsic
mathematical properties of the components were neglected in students’ choices and implementa­
tions of reasoning strategies, and it was essential in their strategies to find procedures to imitate.
Lithner’s study suggested that other aspects of mathematics in addition to test scores could be
influenced by students’ textbook use.
In short, previous studies paid attention to ‘general’ use (e.g. frequency and timing of textbook
use as mentioned in Fan et al.’s (2004) study), reasons of textbook use (e.g. purposes of textbook use
as listed in Weinberg et al.’s (2012) study), the influence of textbook use on students’ mathematics
learning (e.g. the impact of using different mathematics textbooks on the development of reasoning
ability as shown in Lithner’s (2003) study), and others (e.g. how students get access to textbooks as
explained in Pepin and Haggarty (2001) study).
 JOURNAL OF CURRICULUM STUDIES 5

Figure 1. Motivations for using textbooks.

In this study, various indicators pertaining to the word ‘use’ were established to embody students’
use of textbooks in mathematics. As mentioned above, five indicators of students’ textbook use can
be extracted from the related literature, including the frequency, timing, purpose of students’
textbook use in their learning of mathematics, their access to textbooks, and the influence of
textbook use on their mathematics learning. Specifically, this study defines purpose as indicator of
students’ textbook use related to specific learning activities, and involves six purposes of students’
use of textbooks referring to Weinberg et al.’s (2012) list and Rezat’s (2013) constructs, which include
preview, in-class learning and exercises, revision, consulting (e.g. looking up definitions and theo­
rems), doing homework, and finally doing extra exercises (not assigned by school teachers); also, by
summarizing the common aims of the mathematics curriculum in England and Shanghai, this study
embodies the influence of textbook use on students’ mathematics learning in whether the use of
textbooks helps students enhance their mathematics knowledge and skills, improves their ability in
mathematical reasoning, and builds up their ability in problem-solving.
In addition, this study proposes the sixth indicator: ‘the duration of textbook use in a school day’,
in order to further understand to what extent that students rely on textbooks in their mathematics
learning.
Furthermore, this study constructs reasons behind textbook use that are not directly embodied in
learning activities or even may not be related to the learning of mathematics as the seventh
indicator: ‘motivations’ for students’ use of learning resources. The construct of motivation in this
study draws upon Ryan and Deci’s (2000) definition and structure, namely, intrinsic motivation and
extrinsic motivation. The extrinsic motivation discussed in this study consists of two sub-factors
related to students’ textbook use in mathematics learning: external regulation and self-regulation.
Additionally, based on Amabile et al.’s (1994) scale for assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational
orientations of work preference, intrinsic motivation is further divided into two aspects: enjoyment
and challenge. Therefore, the motivations discussed in this study are shown in Figure 1.

Research design and procedure

Mixed methods were employed by this study. Quantitative methods dominated the process of
measuring the frequency, timing, and duration of textbook use, and the documenting of the
purpose, motivation, the access to textbooks, and the influences of students’ textbook use on
their mathematics learning, which reflected the ways, reasons, and results of students interacting
with the textbooks from different facets. The involvement of qualitative methods was taken as
a triangulation and complement to the quantitative data, in order to obtain an in-depth under­
standing and better interpret the differences of textbook use between the two places.
6 Y. WANG AND L. FAN

Sampling
This study only involved government-funded schools. The comparable grade levels were grades 7
and 8 in Shanghai and years 7 and 8 in England, since students at these year levels were in the same
age group and followed the normal teaching and learning schedule. Three schools were selected
using convenience sampling in each place, and at least one class at each grade level in the sampled
schools was selected depending on teachers’ willingness and agenda. The subjects of this study were
all the students in the sampled classes.

Instruments
A student questionnaire was developed to quantify students’ textbook use while classroom observa­
tion and focus group interview were employed to collect qualitative data.
The student questionnaire consists of nine questions. To be specific, some basic information, such
as schools, gender, and grade level, are needed to identify a response and to make an easy start for
students to fill in the questionnaire. Three questions correspond to the frequency, duration, and
timing of students’ textbook use, respectively. Two questions ask about the reasons for textbook use:
one is related to specific activities incorporating textbooks and reflecting the purposes of students’
textbook use in their learning of mathematics, and another integrates possible motivations for the
textbook use. Four questions inquire about other aspects of students’ textbook use: one refers to the
way that students gain access to textbooks, and the remaining three questions deal with the
influences of textbook use on students’ mathematics learning, specifically, corresponding to the
helpfulness of textbook use in improving students’ mathematics knowledge and skills, reasoning
ability, and problem-solving ability respectively. The items and options are intervals for the questions
regarding the duration of textbook use, ordinal for the questions about the frequency and the
influence of textbook use on mathematics learning, and nominal for all the other questions.
Particularly, students were supposed to tick all the options that were applicable to the purposes
and motivations of their textbook use in mathematics learning, and a five-item Likert scale is
employed to gather students’ opinions about the influences of textbook use on their mathematics
learning (e.g. not helpful, slightly helpful, somewhat helpful, helpful, very helpful).
Classroom observation was employed to enrich what students reported in their questionnaires
and to be a triangulation of the data collected from questionnaires. All the sampled classes were
observed at least for one lesson. The script focuses on 1) the frequency with which students use
textbooks, 2) the duration with which students use textbooks, 3) the timing for which textbooks is
supposed to be used by students, 4) the ways that students are supposed to gain access to
textbooks, and 5) the purpose, namely, the learning activities that students incorporate textbooks
into mathematics learning.
Focus group interview was employed as a supplement to the student questionnaire to provide
specific examples in terms of textbook use and the impact of textbook use on students’ mathematics
learning. All the sampled students were asked if they would volunteer to participate in a further
interview with the researcher and 5–7 peers. The sample of the focus groups was a random selection
of the volunteers, and at least one group was assembled from each sampled class for the interview.
The focus group protocol was developed with three questions: 1) Overall, how do you feel about the
importance of textbooks in your learning of mathematics? 2) Do you think textbooks are helpful in
improving your mathematics knowledge and skills, ability in reasoning, and ability in problem-
solving? Can you give some specific examples? 3) How do you think the role of mathematics
textbooks in your learning of mathematics?
 JOURNAL OF CURRICULUM STUDIES 7

Data collection and analysis

In Shanghai, data were collected from 161 students studying in 6 classes in 3 schools, which were
junior secondary schools only covering the grade level from 6 to 9 and located in urban area. Two of
the schools were introduced by a teaching research fellow working for a district-level education
department, in which case the fieldwork was taken as a part of her school inspections so that the
classroom observations, questionnaire surveys, and student focus groups, were arranged and
implemented within one day as the teaching research fellow inspected each school (mid-
September 2017), the classroom observations were videotaped by one camera setting at the back
of classrooms and the interviews were audio taped. The other school was contacted via a personal
relationship and unfortunately, the headteacher only approved questionnaire surveys; hence, no
classroom observations and student focus group interviews were conducted in this school. The
sampled students contributed 144 valid responses to questionnaires, and boys and girls were
roughly even in the sample. Besides, 4 classroom observations, which covered the following topics
in mathematics: like terms, powers with the same base, and quadratic equations, and 4 focus group
interviews, which involved 22 students, were carried out in the three schools.
The selected schools in England were the first three that granted our request via email and
located in the southwest. Two of the schools covered both secondary level and sixth form level, while
the other one only covered secondary level. In school A, the data collection was spread across three
days within one week (end of November 2017). One class in year 7 and one in year 8 taught by the
same mathematics teacher were observed twice on two days; student questionnaires were distrib­
uted to those classes on the first observation day; and the student focus group interviews were
conducted on the third day. In school B, the data collection was spread across two days within one
week (beginning of December 2017). One class in year 7 and two in year 8 taught by the same
mathematics teacher were observed twice; the first day in school B was the same as school A, and the
interviews were implemented on the other day. In school C, the data collection was spread across
two days in two weeks (mid-January 2018). Two classes in year 7 and two in year 8 taught by four
different mathematics teachers were observed once on the first day, three of which participated in
the questionnaire survey, the student questionnaire was distributed to one year 7 class and two year
8 classed. In the following week, twelve students from other classes at the two year-levels, were
interviewed. A total of 178 students provided valid responses to questionnaires and the number of
boys was slightly more than girls in the sample. Also, 14 classroom observations, which covered the
following contents: fractions, factors and multiples, multiply two by three digital numbers including
decimals, standard form, percentage change, algebraic multiplications and divisions, expanding
brackets, like terms, index laws, parallel lines, and perimeters, and 5 focus group interviews, which
involved 27 students, were conducted in the three schools.
Quantitative data for portraying students’ textbook use were organized and presented with
descriptive statistics to show the distributions numerically and graphically. T-tests and Chi-square
tests were employed to examine the significance of the differences of textbook use between
Shanghai and England. Qualitative data collected from student interviews and classroom observa­
tion were transcribed and coded according to different indicators of textbook use, and then were
organized and interpreted where necessary to provide more details of their textbook use.

Limitations
It should be noted that the data collected in this study using the instruments discussed above were
mainly self-reported information, and like many other educational studies, the participants might be
willing or unwilling to tell the truth or forget, in this study, some details of their learning experiences
during the self-reporting process. To minimize those effects, the study employed various research
tools to triangulate the data. Nevertheless, some caution should be taken when interpreting the
data.
8 Y. WANG AND L. FAN

Findings and Discussion

How frequently and for what length of time?
Figure 2 shows the frequency that students used mathematics textbooks in a week and the duration
that students used textbooks in a normal school day. Most (68.8%) of Shanghai students indicated
that they used textbooks almost every day in a week, 19.4% used textbooks 4–5 days a week, and
hardly did the Shanghai students use textbooks less than 3 day a week; while the majority (71%) of
English students didn’t use mathematics textbooks at all. In the meanwhile, 34% of Shanghai
students reported that they used textbooks at least for 30 minutes in a day, 31% used textbooks
between 15–30 minutes a day, and the remaining used textbooks less than 15 minutes a day; while
most English students who did incorporate textbooks in their mathematics learning used them less
than 15 minutes a day.
Chi-square tests indicate that the frequency of textbook use in the two places is significantly
different at the 0.01 level (see Table 1). The frequency of textbook use provide a general view of
whether textbooks were usually used by students from Shanghai and England. Thus, in order to
eliminate the effects of those who did not incorporate textbooks in mathematics learning, the
following tests exclude the ‘N.A’. (not applicable) cases to present the result reflecting the ‘real
differences’ of textbook use. According to Table 1, the differences of the duration of textbook use
between Shanghai and England were significant at 0.05 level.

How to access and when to use?

It was not a surprise that Shanghai students used textbooks at a much higher frequency and for
longer time in a normal school day compared to English students. The immediate cause could be
related to the difference of how the students usually get access to textbooks in the two places. From
Figure 3, we can see that Shanghai students own mathematics textbooks for free as schools or other
sponsors provide buy them the books, while almost all the English students who incorporated

Figure 2. Percentage distributions of the frequency and duration of textbook use.

Table 1. The differences in the frequency and duration of textbook use between Shanghai and
England.
Chi-square test Frequency of textbook use1 Duration of textbook use2
χ2 253.888 10.428
df 4 3
Sig.1 0.000 0.015
1.Shanghai N = 143, England N = 150.
2.Shanghai N = 142, England N = 44.
 JOURNAL OF CURRICULUM STUDIES 9

Figure 3. Percentage distribution of the access to mathematics textbooks.

textbooks in their mathematics learning indicated that they usually borrowed textbooks from class­
room, which implies that few of them possessed mathematics textbooks.
According to students’ responses, classroom observations, and the relevant literature, Shanghai
government buys unified textbooks for every student studying at compulsory education stage,
whereas, in England it is a tradition that schools provide students learning resources, including
textbooks, and it will cost a lot for schools to afford textbooks for every student (Haggarty & Pepin,
2002; Pepin & Haggarty, 2001), hence textbooks are usually kept by teachers and only available for
students to borrow and use within classrooms (see Table 2), which also restricts where students can
incorporate the books in their learning of mathematics.
Hence, when it turns to the timing of textbook use, all the English students incorporating textbooks
in their mathematics learning indicated that they used textbooks only in class while the proportion of
which was 47% for Shanghai students, and nearly a half (48%) of the Shanghai students used

Table 2. A summary of how a textbook is passed to students.

Textbooks Decider Provider Keeper
Shanghai Local government Local government Student
England Teacher/School School Teacher

Figure 4. Percentage distributions of the timing of textbook use.

10 Y. WANG AND L. FAN

textbooks both in and after class (see Figure 4). The differences were examined by Chi-square test to
be significant at 0.01 level (Shanghai N = 142, England N = 44, χ2 = 38.079, df = 2, Sig. = 0.000).

For what reasons?

Based on the conceptual framework, this study provided seven specific situations, including ‘pre­
view’, ‘in-class learning and exercise’, ‘revision’, ‘looking up definitions, theorems, and formulas’,
‘looking up examples, answers, and references’, ‘doing homework’, and ‘doing extra exercises’ for
students to indicate their purposes of textbook use, and constructed six aspects of motivations
behind textbook use as reflected in Table 3.
According to Figure 5, textbooks were widely used by a large proportion of the Shanghai students
in the defined situations, especially for preview, in-class learning and exercises, and looking up
definitions, theorems and formulas, while in England, students hardly used textbooks for those
purposes except for in-class learning and exercise. As we can obtain from Table 4, the differences in
the purposes of students’ textbook use between Shanghai and England were tested to be significant
at 0.01 level except for the purpose ‘doing extra exercises’, in which case both Shanghai and English
students hardly use mathematics textbooks to do exercises not assigned by their teachers.
Also, teacher mediation and self-regulation in terms of the improvement of marks were two of the
main motives behind the textbook use (see Figure 5), which was the case in both England and
Shanghai since no significant differences were found in these two aspects (see Table 4). In fact, the
most mentioned motive of Shanghai students’ textbook use was to improve mathematics knowl­
edge, skills, and abilities (67%) (shown as ‘KSA’ in Figure 5), and other motives defined in this study
were also referred to by some Shanghai students, the proportion of which were tested to be
significantly larger compared to the England side (see Table 4).

Table 3. The motivations for textbook use in mathematics learning.

Motivations Options in student questionnaire
Intrinsic Enjoyment There are many interesting things so it is enjoyable for me to use it.
motivation Challenge I always feel fulfilled when I solve some difficult problems in it.
Extrinsic External- My teacher usually asks me to use it according to his/her instructions.
motivation regulation My parent usually asks me to use it when I study with him/her.
Self-regulation I keenly know that it can improve my mathematics mark.
I think it can help me better understand mathematics knowledge and skills, and enhance my
mathematical abilities.

Figure 5. Percentage distributions of the purposes and motivations of textbook use.

 JOURNAL OF CURRICULUM STUDIES 11

Table 4. The differences in the purpose and motivation of textbook use between Shanghai and England.
Purposes of textbook use1 Motivation of textbook use2
(df = 1) χ2 Sig. (df = 1) χ2 Sig.
Preview 43.373 0.000 Enjoyment — 0.004a
In-class 6.976 0.008 Challenge 7.132 0.008
Revision 24.985 0.000 Mark 3.563 0.059
DTF 39.244 0.000 KSA 18.296 0.000
EAR 9.005 0.003 Teacher 0.852 0.356
Homework 14.979 0.000 Parent 5.791 0.016
Extra 0.310 0.577 — — —
1.Shanghai N = 143, England N = 45.
2.Shanghai N = 143, England N = 45.
a. Exact significance (2-sided) of Fisher–Freeman–Halton test.

Does the use help with learning?

After assigning values to the items from 1 for ‘not helpful’ to 5 for ‘very helpful’, The mean scores of
the influences of textbook use on mathematics knowledge and skills, reasoning ability, and problem-
solving ability were 3.98, 3.69, and 3.87 in Shanghai, respectively, while the scores were 2.94, 2.76,
2.93 in England, and the results of Chi-square tests show that the differences were significant at 0.01
level (see Table 5). It can be seen that Shanghai students thought textbooks positively influenced
their learning of mathematics while English students conveyed a neutral view on the role of text­
books in mathematics learning. It might suggest that, compared to English students, Shanghai
students benefit more from using textbooks, or have more awareness of the positive impact of
textbook use on mathematics learning. However, it could also be because of the emphasis on
propriety in Chinese culture (e.g. Chan, 2008; Fan, 2000), in which case Chinese students might be
more likely to give a non-negative evaluation to avoid offending anyone.

Further discussion
It appears that textbooks play a dominant role in mathematics learning in Shanghai and some
researchers have come to this conclusion (Fan et al., 2004; Li et al., 2009). However, it is not true that
Shanghai students adhere to their textbooks all the time during a lesson. Actually, according to
classroom observations, most of them just listened to the teacher, checked definitions and examples
presented in textbooks occasionally, and took some notes or worked on sheets when the teacher
asked them to do so. It is worth mentioning that Shanghai’s textbooks are much thinner than
England’s, and aim to provide students with learning themes, essential outlines, and the structure of
knowledge in mathematics, instead of a great number of practice exercises (Ministry of Education of
the People’s Republic of China, 2011). The use of mathematics textbooks in Shanghai consistently
represents these design principles; teachers emphasize the concepts and definitions in textbooks,
and students are supposed to learn and understand all the contents in textbooks (Park & Leung,

Table 5. Mean scores of the influence of textbook use on students’ mathematics learning.
Knowledge and skills Reasoning ability Problem-solving ability
Shanghai England Shanghai England Shanghai England
N 143 47 143 46 139 46
Mean 3.98 2.94 3.69 2.76 3.87 2.93
χ2 47.070 25.222 26.115
df 3a 4 4
Sig. 0.000 0.000 0.000
1Standing for ‘Not helpful’ was integrated to value 2 to reduce the number of cells that have expected count less than 5. In this
case, no more than 1 cell (12.5%) has expected count less than 5.
12 Y. WANG AND L. FAN

2006). Also, students described the role of mathematics textbooks in their learning of mathematics
as follows:

“The knowledge presented in the textbook will 100% appear in the examination.”

“The textbook shows me the steps for solving a problem.”

“The textbook is my pathfinder.”

Therefore, as students said in interviews, textbooks were more likely to be used by students as
a dictionary for knowing concepts, a template for solving questions, and guidance for preparing for
examinations, other than a source for doing exercises, which corresponded to the high frequency,
multi-purposes, and mainly for self-regulation, but with shorter duration and lower helpfulness
ratings in improving mathematical skills and abilities in terms of using textbooks.
In England, textbooks are not a commonly used resource in mathematics learning, which echoes
Bokhove and Jones (2014) finding that the term ‘textbook’ less frequently appeared in Ofsted reports
as there was a considerable decrease of textbook use in England since 2004. In interview, some
students pointed out that it seemed to be the case only in mathematics:

Interviewer: I noticed that you don’t use textbooks very often?

Student: No . . . Not in mathematics. If we have like a teacher that’s not actually a maths teacher then we usually
use the textbooks.

They also specified that they did not ‘really’ use textbooks as they did not own the books, in which
case they could not make any notes in them and take them home:

Student 1: ‘Like those questions inside the textbooks, you write them in exercise books’.

Student 2: “Usually you do like a photocopied sheet from the textbook . . . and complete the blanks on the
sheet.”

Therefore, it seems that English students were not familiar with what the textbook was really about
and did not have a whole picture of the textbook, since they either did not use them or used the
book in sections. Hence, it could be hard for some of them to give attitudes towards the importance
of textbooks on their mathematics learning, and only a few of the students gave their opinions about
the role of textbooks in their learning, which are similar to the descriptions from Shanghai:

Student 1: “if I am struggling in a particular subject, I’d . . . get the textbooks, I think could help me revise that.”

Student 2: “ . . . in the textbooks you got words and how to add visual pictures to see what to do.”

Interviewer: Textbooks show the solving steps?

Student 2: “Yeah.”

In England, textbooks are regarded rather as an ‘encyclopaedia’ containing various concepts and
numerous exercises for teachers to choose from when delivering a certain topic (Park & Leung, 2006).
The result of classroom observation in England reflects this point to a great extent: teachers who
incorporated textbooks in teaching practice could have several different series in their classrooms,
and mainly asked students to work on selected exercises in textbooks, in which case students usually
were not expected to have a precise understanding and holistic view of what a whole textbook
actually presented, at least for the students in years 7 and 8. In fact, English teachers and students
seem to be struggling with using textbooks because students cannot ‘really’, or ‘directly’ use text­
books. There was a particular case that students in one of the sampled schools wrote concepts and
the key explanations into a book with ruled pages under their teacher’s instruction to make their
own a ‘textbook’. Therefore, it suggests the appeal to students of a book containing essential
knowledge and typical examples in mathematics.
 JOURNAL OF CURRICULUM STUDIES 13

Despite the governments’ different attitudes towards curriculum resource use between the two
places as mentioned earlier, another possible explanation of such the differences might be reflected
in how teachers work beyond classroom. In Shanghai, there are Collective Lesson Planning Groups
for different subjects at each grade level, in which all teachers teaching the same subject meet
regularly, prepare lessons together, observe each other’s lessons, reflect and comment on observa­
tions collectively, and conduct public lessons in turn (Fan et al., 2015). Whereas, English teachers’
participation in collaborative whole-school lesson planning decreased with increased use of govern­
ment-approved schemes of work for the national curriculum (Webb et al., 2004). The schemes list the
content that teachers are supposed to teach, while they can still use different resources and employ
different teaching approaches to deliver lessons, which means that there is little need for teachers to
make the decision together on what to teach as they usually did before. Therefore, the consensus of
whether use textbooks and which series should be used in mathematics learning and teaching
within an England school is not as strong as Shanghai.

Summary, Conclusions, and Implications

This paper reports a survey investigating how Shanghai and English students use textbooks and
compares the differences and similarities of textbook use between the two places, with the data
collected from 161 Shanghai seventh- and eighth-grade students from three state-funded schools
and 206 England year-seven and -eight students from three maintained schools.
The results show that, in Shanghai, textbooks supplied by government are frequently used by
students both in and after class for various purposes including preview, revision, in-class learning,
and exercises, and looking up information. Also, Shanghai students have a strong sense of self-
regulation behind their textbook use and perceive the helpfulness of textbooks in their mathematics
learning. Whereas, in England, textbooks usually are supplied by schools and only available to
students to borrow and use during lessons under the guidance of their teachers for in-class learning
and exercises rather than to use as their own possessions. Thus, English students seem to not have
a clear image of what a mathematics textbook really says and not be aware of the influence of
textbook use on their mathematics learning.
In the Shanghai’s case, students and teachers have an essential and standard textbook to follow,
a strong consensus of the role of textbooks in mathematics learning. Whereas, with the tradition
emphasizing the whole-class teaching (Biggs, 1998; Wang & Lin, 2005), it should be kept in mind that
students could have different learning needs; hence it is important for teachers to provide students
with choices and leave room for students with different needs in terms of textbook use, which might
also help to relieve some students’ and parents’ anxiety about being ‘ordinary’ and seeking extra
learning beyond normal school work (Tan, 2012).
For the situation in England, students’ learning of mathematics appears to depend heavily on
their teachers since most of them use textbooks passively or only under teacher’s requirements, and
it is largely the teacher who takes the dominant role in students’ use of textbooks. Meanwhile, the
findings of this study also suggest that the constraint of access to textbooks hinders how students
can use them. It appears that English students could be more aware of their own responsibility of
learning in schools if their teachers expect more of them, for instance, let students keep their own
learning resources and encourage, if not require, them to engage learning beyond classrooms.
In short, this study depicts a relatively holistic view of how students incorporate textbooks in
mathematics learning in contemporary Shanghai and English. It provides research-based evidence
revealing different roles that mathematics textbooks as curriculum resources play in Shanghai and
England, with different social and educational contexts. In Shanghai, mathematics textbook is
authorized by the government as a crucial embodiment of the official curriculum, reflecting how
the curriculum can be enacted, while in England, for pupils of the age in this study, mathematics
textbook is not as indispensable as Shanghai and is taken more as a support resource for curriculum,
though the situation is possibly different for English pupils at higher year levels with examination
14 Y. WANG AND L. FAN

boards, since textbooks often linked to particular exams, such as ‘GCSE Mathematics for OCR Student
Book’.
In a sense, the results of this study also imply that though the education system in China has
become increasingly decentralized from the central government to local authorities during the
recent decades (Pan et al., 2015), the system within an administrative region, such as Shanghai, is
still centrally controlled at the system level to a great extent, especially for curriculum resources, as
also partly revealed in the PISA report (OECD, 2013). In fact, the PISA report presented a trend that
the more autonomy schools have, the better the students’ mathematics performance, which is the
case across the educational systems of all countries and regions, except Shanghai, which appeared to
be an outlier (OECD, 2013). The results of this study are consistent with PISA’s report when it comes
to school autonomy about adoption and use of textbooks. Therefore, it is not the case to simply
advise further decentralization for Shanghai policymakers, but to suggest careful examination of the
issues and provide more choices of teaching and learning resources.
Compared with Shanghai, school and local educational administrators in England have great
autonomy over curricula and assessments (OECD, 2013), and they also give their teachers great
autonomy in their teaching, including use of curriculum resources. However, more attentions should
be paid to the quality of curriculum resources and the development of teachers’ teaching abilities, since
it is usually the teachers who decide which and how those resources should be used by students. Also, it
appears advisable for schools and teachers to help students have a broader view of their mathematics
learning in the case that they do not have an essential book addressing the basic knowledge that they
are going through during a school term. It could enhance students’ motives for self-regulated learning if
they always know what they are going to do and see the goal clearly (Urdan & Schoenfelder, 2006).
In future, research investigating how other types of curriculum resources in addition to textbooks
are used by students in their learning of mathematics is worth undertaking. According to this study,
textbooks are not the essential resources to English students, hence it is natural to further ask what
other resources they have and use in mathematics learning. Also, as Shanghai textbooks do not
provide students with adequate exercises, it is worth asking what other resources students use to
have enough exercises and how these resources help them in mathematics learning. Moreover, since
England and Shanghai have quite different contexts in terms of the educational systems and culture,
examining how culture influences the use of curriculum resources in different educational contexts is
also a direction for further studies. Finally, we think it is reasonable to argue that the conceptual
framework established and the methodology employed in this study can be largely adapted to
research exploring the role of curriculum resources in students’ learning of other school subjects; in
fact, the similar concern about textbook use has been raised regarding the learning of language and
science subjects (Lee & Bathmaker, 2007; Smith & Jacobs, 2003), suggesting that there exist impor­
tance and commonality concerning the issue in a wider interest.

Note
1. Theoretically, schools in Shanghai can adopt any textbooks as long as they are approved by the government.
However, in reality, there has been only one series of mathematics textbooks developed and then approved by
the government; hence, virtually all schools in Shanghai use the same series of textbooks.

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors
Yi Wang is a post-doctoral research fellow in the School of Mathematical Sciences at Beijing Normal University. She got
a bachelor’s degree in mathematics and a master’s degree in curriculum and instruction (mathematics) from Beijing
 JOURNAL OF CURRICULUM STUDIES 15

Normal University, China. After that, she continued doing research in mathematics education with a focus on students’
use of learning resources and earned her PhD at the University of Southampton, UK. Her research interests include
mathematics curriculum, textbooks, e-learning, and educational assessment, in which areas she has published several
articles on peer-reviewed research journals and conferences.
Lianghuo Fan is a distinguished professor and director of Asian Centre for Mathematics Education, School of
Mathematics Sciences at East China Normal University, Shanghai and a visiting professor in Southampton Education
School at the University of Southampton, UK. He earned his MSc in mathematics education and mathematical history at
East China Normal University, Shanghai, and his PhD in education at the University of Chicago, USA. Professor Fan has
a broad and interdisciplinary interest in research areas including mathematics classroom instruction, curriculum studies
and textbook research, teacher education and professional development, international and comparative education in
mathematics, education policy and sociology, and algorithm of polynomial algebra. He has a wide range of publications
in these areas

ORCID
Yi Wang http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5460-1918

References
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The work preference inventory: Assessing intrinsic and
extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 950–967. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0022-3514.66.5.950
Biggs, J. (1998). Learning from the Confucian heritage: So size doesn’t matter? International Journal of Educational
Research, 29(8), 723–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(98)00060-3
Bokhove, C., & Jones, K. (2014). Mathematics textbook use in England: Mining Ofsted reports for views on textbooks. In
The International Conference on Mathematics Textbook Research and Development (ICMT-2014) (159–166).
Southampton: University of Southampton.
Boylan, M., Wolstenholme, C., Demack, S., Maxwell, B., Jay, T., Adams, G., & Reaney, S. (2019). Longitudinal evaluation of
the mathematics teacher exchange: China-England. Final report. Department for Education, UK Government.
Chan, W. (2008). A source book in Chinese philosophy. Princeton University Press
Fan, L., Chen, J., Zhu, Y., Qiu, X., & Hu, J. (2004). Textbook use within and beyond mathematics classrooms: A study of 12
secondary schools in Kunmin and Fuzhou of China. In L. Fan, N.-Y. Wong, & J. Cai (Eds.), How Chinese learn
mathematics: Perspective from insiders (pp. 228–261). World Scientific.
Fan, L., Miao, Z., & Mok, A. C. I. (2015). How Chinese teachers teach mathematics and pursue professional development:
Perspectives from contemporary international research. In L. Fan, N.-Y. Wong, J. Cai, & S. Li (Eds.), How Chinese teach
mathematics: Perspectives from insiders (pp. 43–70). World Scientific. https://doi.org/101142/8542
Fan, L., Trouche, L., Qi, C., Rezat, S., & Visnovska, J. (2018). Research on mathematics textbooks and teachers ’ resources :
Advances and issues. Springer.
Fan, L., Xiong, B., Zhao, D., & Niu, W. (2018). How is cultural influence manifested in the formation of mathematics
textbooks? A comparative case study of resource book series between Shanghai and England. ZDM–Mathematics
Education,50(5), 787–799.
Fan, L., Zhu, Y., & Miao, Z. (2013). Textbook research in mathematics education: development status and directions. ZDM
Mathematics Education,45(5), 633–646.
Fan, Y. (2000). A classification of Chinese culture. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 7(2), 3–10. https://
doi.org/10.1108/13527600010797057
Grave, I. & Pepin, B. (2015). Teachers’ use of resources in and for mathematics teaching. Nordic Studies in Mathematics
Education, 20(3–4), 199–222.
Haggarty, L., & Pepin, B. (2002). An investigation of mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German
classrooms: Who gets an opportunity to learn what? British Educational Research Journal, 28(4), 567–590. https://doi.
org/10.1080/0141192022000005832
Lee, R. N. F., & Bathmaker, A.-M. (2007). The use of English textbooks for teaching English to “vocational” students in
Singapore secondary schools: A survey of teachers’ beliefs. RELC Journal, 38(3), 350–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0033688207085852
Li, Y., Zhang, J., & Ma, T. (2009). Approaches and practices in developing school mathematics textbooks in China. ZDM,
41(6), 733–748. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-009-0216-2
Lithner, J. (2003). Students’ mathematical reasoning in university textbook exercises. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
52(1), 29–55. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023683716659
16 Y. WANG AND L. FAN

Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2011). Mathematics curriculum standards for compulsory
education (2011 Edition). Beijing Normal University Press.
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2015). The announcement about the use of instructional books
in primary and secondary schools of 2015. General Office of the Ministry of Education. http://ncct.moe.edu.cn/2015/
noticeText_0413/4166.html
Nicholls, J. (2003). Methods in school textbook research. International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching and
Research,3(2), 1–17.
Nicol, C. C., & Crespo, S. M. (2006). Learning to teach with mathematics textbooks: How preservice teachers interpret and
use curriculum materials. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(3), 331–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-
5423-y
OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 results : What makes schools successful? Resources, policies and practices (Vol. IV). https://doi.org/
10.1787/9789264201156-en
Pan, Y., Vayssettes, S., Fordham, E., & Yang, C. (2015). Education in China: A snapshot. Secretary-General of the OECD. PISA,
OECD publishing. http://www.oecd.org/china/Education-in-China-a-snapshot.pdf
Park, K., & Leung, F. K. S. (2006). A comparative study of the mathematics textbooks of China, England, Japan, Korea, and
the United States. In F. K.-S. Leung, K.-D. Graf, & F. J. Lopez-Real (Eds.), Mathematics education in different cultural
traditions a comparative study of East Asia and the West (pp. 227–238). Springer.
Pepin, B., & Haggarty, L. (2001). Mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms.
Zentralblatt Für Didaktik Der Mathematik, 33(5), 158–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02656616
Polly, D. (2017). Elementary school teachers' uses of mathematics curricular resources, Journal of Curriculum Studies,49
(2), 132–148.
Randahl, M. (2012). First-year engineering students’ use of their mathematics textbook-opportunities and constraints.
Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24(3), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-012-0040-9
Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining Key Concepts in Research on Teachers’ Use of Mathematics Curricula. Review of
Educational Research,75(2), 211–246. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002211
Rezat, S. (2009). The utilization of mathematics textbooks as instruments for learning. In V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-
Lavergne, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics
Education (Vol. 6, pp. 1260–1269). INRP.
Rezat, S. (2011). Wozu verwenden Schüler ihre Mathematikschulbücher? Ein Vergleich von erwarteter und tatsächlicher
Nutzung. Journal Für Mathematik-Didaktik, 32(2), 153–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13138-011-0028-0
Rezat, S. (2012). Interactions of teachers’ and students’ use of mathematics textbooks. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, &
L. Trouche (Eds.), From Text to “Lived” Resources: Mathematics curriculum materials and teacher development (pp.
231–245). Springer.
Rezat, S., & Sträßer, R. (2013). Methodologies in nordic research on mathematics textbooks. In B. Grevholm,
P. S. Hundeland, K. Juter, K. Kislenko, & P.-E. Persson (Eds.), Nordic Research in Didactics of Mathematics: Past,
Present, and Future (pp. 469–482). Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
Rezat, S. (2013). The textbook-in-use: Students’ utilization schemes of mathematics textbooks related to self-regulated
practicing. ZDM, 45(5), 659–670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0529-z
Rezat, S., Fan, L., Hattermann, H., Schumacher, J., & Wuschke, H. (Eds.) (2019), Proceedings of the Third International
Conference on Mathematics Textbook Research and Development. Paderborn, Germany: Universitätsbibliothek
Paderborn. https://digital.ub.uni-paderborn.de/doi/10.17619/UNIPB/1768
Rezat, S., Fan, L., Hattermann, H., Schumacher, J., & Wuschke, H. (Eds.) (2019), Proceedings of the Third International
Conference on Mathematics Textbook Research and Development. Paderborn, Germany: Universitätsbibliothek
Paderborn. https://digital.ub.uni-paderborn.de/doi/10.17619/UNIPB/1768
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary
Educational Psychology,25(1), 54–67.
Schubring, G. & Fan, L. (2018). Recent advances in mathematics textbook research and development: an overview. ZDM-
The International Journal on Mathematics Education,50(5), 765–771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0979-4 .
Schubring, G., Fan, L., & Giraldo, V. (Eds.) (2018). Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Mathematics
Textbook Research and Development (ICMT-2). Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
Smith, B. D., & Jacobs, D. C. (2003). TextRev: A window into how general and organic chemistry students use textbook
resources. J. Chem. Educ, 80(1), 99–102. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed080p99
Sosniak, L. A., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1993). Teachers and textbooks: Materials use in four fourth-grade classrooms. The
Elementary School Journal, 93 (3), 249–275. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1001895 .
Tan, C. (2012). Learning from Shanghai: Lessons on achieving educational success. Springer.
Törnroos, J. (2001). Mathematics textbooks and students’ achievement in the 7th grade: What is the effect of using
different textbooks. In J. Novotna Ed., European Research in Mathematics Education II (pp. 518–527). Charles
University. Faculty of Education.
Urdan, T., & Schoenfelder, E. (2006). Classroom effects on student motivation: Goal structures, social relationships, and
competence beliefs. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.003
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
 JOURNAL OF CURRICULUM STUDIES 17

Wang, J., & Lin, E. (2005). Comparative studies on US and Chinese mathematics learning and the implications for
standards-based mathematics teaching reform. Educational Researcher, 34(5), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0013189X034005003
Weale, S. (2015). Chinese teachers bring the art of maths to English schools. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.
com/education/2015/mar/13/chinese-teachers-bring-the-art-of-maths-to-english-schools
Webb, R., Vulliamy, G., Hämäläinen, S., Sarja, A., Kimonen, E., & Nevalainen, R. (2004). A comparative analysis of primary
teacher professionalism in England and Finland. Comparative Education, 40(1), 83–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0305006042000184890
Weinberg, A., Wiesner, E., Benesh, B., & Boester, T. (2012). Undergraduate students’ self-reported use of mathematics
textbooks. PRIMUS, 22(2), 152–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2010.509336
Zhu, Y., & Fan, L. (2002). Textbook use by Singaporean mathematics teachers at lower secondary level. In E. Douglas &
Y. Ban Har (Eds.), Mathematics Education for a Knowledge-Based Era (pp. 194–201). Association of Mathematics
Educators.
Österholm, M. (2008). Do students need to learn how to use their mathematics textbooks?: The case of reading
comprehension. Nordisk Matematikkdidaktikk,13(3), 53–73.