Report on AttendingThe APEC-Tsukuba International Conference X: Innovation of

Mathematics Education through Lesson Study Challenges to Energy Efficiency on STEM and Cross-border Education (February 12-15,

2016)University of Tsukuba, Tokyo, Japan

and

The Back to Back Meeting: SEAMEO RECSAM-University of Tsukuba Joint Seminar: Searching for Quality Mathematics Curriculum

Framework on the Era of Globalization (February 15-18, 2016)

Fadjar Shadiq, M.App.Sc and Dr Wahyudi SEAMEO QITEP in Mathematics

The University of Tsukuba, Japan, invited 2 participants from Indonesia, Fadjar Shadiq, M.App.Sc (The Deputy Director for Administration of SEAMEO QITEP in Mathematics) and Dr Wahyudi (The Deputy Director for Programme of SEAMEO QITEP in Mathematics), on behalf of Prof. Subanar, Ph.D (The Director of SEAMEO QITEP in Mathematics) to attend the APEC-Tsukuba International Conference X. Those 2 participants also attended the Back to Back Meeting: SEAMEO RECSAM-University of Tsukuba Joint Seminar: Searching for Quality Mathematics Curriculum Framework on the Era of Globalization, February 15-18, 2016, in Tokyo, Japan.

1

Such as the previous Conference, this Conference includes keynote lectures, short presentations, discussions, open lesson, and workshops. Although the conference is focused on mathematics education, the conference will be meaningful for other subjects on the context of lesson study. The Conference was hosted by the Centre for Research on International Cooperation in Educational Development (CRICED), University of Tsukuba, with the General Chair was Prof. Masami Isoda (APEC Project Overseer), while the APEC Project Co-Overseer was Ass. Prof. Dr. Maitree Inprasitha (Khon Kaen University Thailand).

This international level conference and seminar was attended by prominent mathematics educators from Europe (Barbara Jaworski), Gabriel Matney, (USA), Colleen M. Eddy (Director of Office of Teacher Preparation, University of North Texas, USA), Gatot Hari Priowirjanto, (Director of SEAMEO, from Indonesia, Asia), Hee-Chan Lew (Professor on Korean National University of Education, Korea, Asia), and Shizumi Shimizu (Professor on Teikyo University, Japan, Asia).

Rational

On the Joint Statement of the 2012 APEC Education Ministerial Meeting, mathematics and science were set as the first priority areas for the Human Resource Development Working Group (HRDWG) activity. In the latest movements in mathematics and science education, Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education has been enhancing the process of designing future. The Emergency Preparedness Education Projects (HRD 03-2011, 05-2012, 04-2013) and the Future Prediction Project (Self-fund; 2014) proposed from Thailand and Japan developed the textbooks/materials for future preparation using mathematics and science through APEC Lesson Study Network.

In the 2014 Energy Ministerial Meeting, issues were addressed as follows. “The world’s energy supply and demand pattern has been changing. Global energy demand continues to rise steadily. The Asia-Pacific assumes a more prominent role as the center of world energy demand. At the same time, political environment and economic situation, fluctuations in the energy market, climate change, and public perception and acceptance exert huge impacts on energy policy making in the Asia-Pacific. Moreover, energy costs are crucial to the competitiveness of energy intensive industries in the region (Beijing Declaration - Joining Hands towards Sustainable Energy Development in the Asia-Pacific Region, 2014 Energy Ministerial Meeting).

As mentioned above, energy efficiency is crucial for sustainable development of APEC economies but also necessary for productivity of future economies which will be carried out by their well educated people regarding this issue.In school education, there are limited programs for energy efficiency. In the traditional science education, energy used to be limited to the topic of

2

Physics subject. On the other hand, on the current context of economic science and social engineering, energy efficiency is calculated by the economic and environmental cost for designing future welfare. There is necessity to develop the textbook at school level to treat energy efficiency relevantly to the current global demand.

In addition, cross-border education is the top priority in APEC for enhancing connectivity and mobility on the era of Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement. APEC Lesson Study Network will be adopted for the cross-border educational experiment between economies.

ObjectivesThere are four main objectives on this activity:1. to learn and benchmark against Lesson Study, especially on the use of

‘plan’, ‘do’ and ‘see’ in enhancing the professional competencies of mathematics teachers relating to energy efficiency, STEM and cross border education,

2. to learn and benchmark against how to help learners to learn mathematics meaningfully, how to help them to learn to think and to learn mathematics by and for themselves relating to energy efficiency, STEM and cross border education,

3. to learn and benchmark against how to conduct and manage an international level conference, and

4. to learn and benchmark against the system in working together among international level of mathematics educators.

Activities and Results of Attending the Conference

Feb. 11, 2015: Arrival day.

Feb. 12, 2015: National Lesson Study Meeting & Opening Day

Attend National Lesson Study Meeting at the Elementary School

Teacher Kei Ohno (Grade 6). Lesson title: “Where should we place 0? Introduction of negative numbers.” Lesson Plan can be seen and studied on Appendix A.

The teacher started the lesson by showing children a 20 cm long blue magnet tape written 2 m, and a 50 cm long red magnet tape written 5 m. Then teacher asked: “Let us make some calculations using these two tapes.” Children 1: Connect the 2 m tape and the 5 m tape. 2 + 5= 7.Children 2: We can swap the tapes. 5 + 2 = 7. Children 3: The 5m tape is 2.5 times longer than the 2m tape. 5 ÷ 2 = 2.5.Children 4: We can swap them again. 2 ÷ 5 = 0.4.Children 5: A rectangle, 2 m wide and 5 m long, has an area of 10 m2. Children 6: We can swap them again. 5 m x 2 m = 10 m2

3

Children 7: The 5 m tape is 3 m longer than the 2 m tape. 5 2 =3 Children 8: The length difference between 5 m and 2 m is 3 m. Teacher: Where is 0 on the number line? Children 9: If we define 2 m as 0, 5 m tape is 3. Children 10: If we place 0 at the end of the 5 m tape, the 2 m tape is 3 m shorter than 0. Children 11: The answer of “2 5” is 3 less than 0.

Teacher Seiyama (Grade 5). Lesson title: Active learning through comparing long leg robot drama posters (Learning unit: ratio). The Lesson Plan of this presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix B.

Teacher (T) started the lesson by showing the actual long leg robot to the class. He informed the class that the body length of the robot is 40 cm and the leg length is 24 cm. He then showed the class the images of the posters and lengths of the robot body and legs drawn on the posters as follow.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Body length 50 cm 50 cm 50 cm Leg length 24 cm 30 cm 34 cm

The T then asked: “Which poster can show the robot length correctly?” Child or Children (C1): The group 1 robot’s leg lengths are less than a half of the body length. They are too short and not correct. C2: I think group 3’s poster is correct because the length difference between the body and the leg is 16 cm. The original robot has the same difference. C3: I think group 2 drew the robot correctly. 30 ÷ 50 = 0.6. The leg length is 0.6 times of the body length. This is same to the original robot.

The teacher led the discussion on comparisons using the difference and the ratio: “We have two styles to compare objects. One is using the difference and another is using times.” C4: If we can use the length difference to draw the robot correctly, a 100 cm body length robot must have 86 cm long legs. It does not show the correct image of the original robot. C5: If a robot body is 20 cm long, a leg must be only 4 cm long. C6: If we apply the idea “The leg length is 0.6 times of the body length”, the 100 cm long body robot has 60 cm long legs and the 20 cm long body robot has 12 cm long legs.

The two lesson started with activities or problems, then the teachers gave opportunity for their students to solve the problems independently, gave opportunity for their students to communicate and present their results to other students to learn and decide the easiest way to solve the problems.

Project Overseers, Prof. Maitree Inprasitha & Prof. Masami Isoda explained the Project of APEC specialists HRD 03 2015A – Textbook Development for

4

Energy Efficiency, Energy Security and Energy Resiliency: A Cross-border Education Cooperation through Lesson Study. Opening Ceremony and Short Lecture.

Greetings from University of Tsukuba & Khon Kaen University,Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan and Ministry of Education, Thailand and Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan.

Greetings from supporting organization Shinji Ishii, Director for Resource and Energy Research International Affairs Division, Agency for Natural Resources and Energy, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan Toward Enhancing Energy Efficiency in the APEC Region. He explained: (1) The overview of APEC, (2) Global Energy Trend, (3) APEC Energy Ministerial Meeting (EMM), (4) APEC Energy Working Group (EWG), (5) Promote Energy Efficiency, and (6) APEC Energy Efficiency Sub-Fund. Finally he concluded that: (1) APEC region is at the center of global energy demand, (2) Through the EMM and the EWG, APEC economies have discussed energy security issues including energy efficiency since 1996, (3) It is vital to enlighten the younger generation about the importance of energy through elementary and secondary education, (4) Japan will keep contributions of energy efficiency activities in the APEC region. The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix C.

Keynote Lectures

Masazumi Hirono, Head of Energy Statistics & Training Office, Asia-Pacific EnergyResearch Centre (APERC) Energy Data and Analysis in APEC. He explained: (1) APEC: Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation(21 Economies), (2) APEC Energy Working Group(EWG), (3) Expert Group on Energy Data & Analysis (EGEDA), (4) APERC ESTO (Energy Statistics & Training Office), (5) APEC Energy Database: Data Collection from Member Economies, and (6) APEC Energy Efficiency Template. The information can be used for the data on the important of energy efficiency during the teaching and learning of mathematics. The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix D.

Gatot Hari Priowirjanto, Director of SEAMEO Secretariat. His presentation title was: “Cross Border Education, SEAMEO Centers Best Practices.” He informed the Content Mobility such as E-Collaborative Learning, Online Training, Online Test/Exercise or Online Seminar while for Teacher & Student Mobility such as Teacher Attachment program, Internship Program, Student exchange or Online Lecture that can be chosen as part of the Cross Border Education. The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix E.

5

Colleen M. Eddy, Director, Office of Teacher Preparation, University of North Texas. Her presentation title was: ‘Lesson Study: Preparing for Evidence of Learning.’ She informed that the Questioning Quality based on the work of Eddy & Harrell (2013) was very important and crucial in facilitating students. Master–Teacher are needed to consistently and appropriately uses multiple, varied, and differentiated questions to scaffold instruction. Three Indicators are: (1) Open ended questions, (2) Mix of Bloom’s high and low questions, and (3) Connect to students’ prior knowledge. These were the exampleso How do you know the expression represents all the numbers

included?o What do those numbers mean? (set of even differences)o See if you can write a solution that includes all of the numbers.o How could you represent all the numbers that fit the problem?o How could you represent the numbers that don’t fit the problem?o What patterns are you noticing?o What is a perfect square? The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix F.

Feb. 13, 2nd Day, Lesson Study, Keynote & Presentations

Attend the Junior High School Lesson Study Meeting at Ochanomizu University. Lesson Study for Cross Boarder Education. Dr Suhaidah Tahir Dr M Johan, Mr Dominggo and Mr Pedro from SEAMEO RECSAM presented the lesson in front of Japanese JSS students, while their colleagues from SEAMEO RECSAM (Mr Nakano, Dr Jehan) presented the lesson in front of Malaysian JSS students. Then the students from both countries asked question to the other students from different country. For example, why the price of electricity from Malaysia and Japan are different? How do we know and what is the evidence that the price from two countries are different? The students then solve the problems independently. Finally the teacher gave opportunity to students to present their results. It is known that the Cost of Electricity for every kWh (1 KWh) in Malaysia is RM0.25 while in Japan is ¥25.00. The Exchange Rate is 35 Malaysian Ringgit is almost equivalent to 1,000 Japanese Yen. The student task can be seen and studied on Appendix G.

Keynotes

Zensuke Kumano, his presentation title was: “Action Research on STEM education development into Japanese Contexts; Possible on Japanese Course of Study from the Consequence of Shizuoka STEM Education Trials.” His presentation: (1) Contexts of Science Education in Japan, (2) Methods of Research, (3) Science and Technology Governance (4) Shizuoka STEMLessons at Attached Junior High School at Shizuoka University.

He also proposed ‘Learning as a Developmental Progression with Three Dimensions as follow.

6

1st Dimension; Science & Technology Practices which consist of: (1) Asking questions (for science) and defining problems or issues (for engineering), (2) Developing and using models, (3) Planning and carrying out investigations, (4) Analyzing and interpreting data, (5) Using mathematics and computational thinking, (6) Constucting explanations (for science) and designing solutions (for engineering), (7) Engaging in argument from evidence and (8) Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information.2nd Dimension; Cross Cutting which consist of: (1) Patterns, (2) Cause and effect, (3) Scale, proportion, and quantity, (4) Systems and system models, (5) Energy and matter, (6) Structure and function and (7) Stability and change.3rd Dimension; Four contents in K-12 Framework which consist of: (1) Physics and Chemistry; (2) Biology; (3) Earth & Space Science; and (4) Engeering,Technology, and Applied Science.The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix H.

Niphon Chanlen, A STEM Approach on Energy Education in Thailand. His presentation: (1) IPST (The Institute for The Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology), (2) Thailand’s energy situation on Power Development Plan (2015-2036), (3) Energy education in Thailand on Fuel energy for transportation, (4) On Renewable energy, and (5) Energy STEM project. The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix I.

Presentation of each economy. In relation to STEM, what reform is going on in your economy? In relation for Cross Border, what is possible for you?

Carlos TORRES, PERU presentation. The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix J.

Roberto Araya, CHILE presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix K.

Hee-chan Lew, Energy Issues in KOREAN Education. The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix L.

February 14, 2016: 3rd Day, Keynote & Presentations 

Keynote: Roberto Araya, On Modeling. His presentation was as follows: (1) What

is modeling? (2) Why modeling? and (3) How to teach modeling? Regarding the first part (what is modeling) which consist of (1) Predictions, (2) Explanations in the form of: (1) concrete or explicit model, (2) pictorial or symbolic model and (3) symbolic model in which the model has been expressed in mathematical language. The Explicit Models can be used to compare, improve, predict and explain. While the Mathematical Modeling used because it is more powerful, can be used as predictions in new situations and as hidden mechanisms.

7

Regarding How to teachModeling? The answer can be: (1) Use Select Adjust Build, (2) Concrete Model Pictorial Model Math Model, (3) Predict & explain and (4) Inter classroom competition and Intra class collaboration. The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix M.

Presentations

Ivan R.Vysotski (Russia) Steven Hupigo Tandale, Fifaia Matainaho. The Presentation can be seen

and studied on Appendix N. Marcela Santillan, The Energy Situation in Mexico. The Presentation can

be seen and studied on Appendix O. Maitree Inprasitha, Preecha Kruawan, Thanya Kadroon, Suttharat

Boonlerts, Mathematics for Future Prediction. The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix P.

Soledad Ulep, Aida Yap and Bautista Jr. “The Philippine Perspective.” The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix Q.

Wahyudi, Fadjar Shadiq, “Promises and Challenges to Energy Efficiency on STEM and Cross-border Education: Indonesia Perspective.” The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix R.

Keynote: Aida Yap, Masami Isoda, Guillermo P. Bautista Jr: “On gender and

Digital textbook.” Regarding Gender vs Sex, based on UNFPA, gender refers to the economic, social, and cultural attributes and opportunities connected with being male or female. It is social and cultural in nature, while sex refers to having different biological and physical characteristics. It is biological in nature. They also lead the discussion between Gender Equity vs Gender Equality. Based on source UNFPA, gender equity is the process of ensuring fairness to women and men. It leads to equality while gender equality requires equal access of men and women to opportunities, economic and social resources and rewards, which is not restricted by their sex. The Global Gender Gap Index examines the gap between men and women in the following four fundamental categories (sub-indexes): 1). Economic participation and opportunity, 2). Educational attainment, 3). Health and survival and 4). Political Empowerment. Finally they discussed Gender Equality in Japanese Textbook. The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix S.

Discussion about textbook

February 15, 4th Day, Discussions & Closing

Matching for Cross Border Lesson study and develop the plan and tasks Wahyudi and Fadjar Shadiq, Lesson Study through Cross-border

Education: Indonesia - SEAMEO member countries and beyond. The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix T.

8

Roberto Araya, Tentative Task of Lesson Study on Cross Border Education

Hee-chan Lew, Tentative Tasks of Cross Border Lesson studyon Energy through STEAM. The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix U.

Carlos Torres, Lesson Study on Cross Border Education in Relation to STEM and Energy Efficiency

Steven Hupigo Tandale, Fifaia Matainaho, ACTION PLAN for Papua New Guinea

Soledad A. Ulep, Aida Yap, Guillermo P. Bautista JrTentative Task for Lesson Study on Cross Border Education in Relation to STEM and Energy Efficiency.

Closing for The APEC-Tsukuba International Conference X: Innovation of Mathematics Education through Lesson Study Challenges to Energy Efficiency on STEM and Cross-border Education

Satellite Meeting for SEAMEO RECSAM-University of Tsukuba Joint Seminar: Searching for Quality Mathematics Curriculum Framework on the Era of Globalization

February 15 Day 1

Opening & Photo session Greetings from University of Tsukuba and SEAMEO Regional Centre for Education in Science and Mathematics (RECSAM), Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan, South East Asia Ministers Organization

Explanation of the Project and SEA-BAS by SEAMEO RECSAM.

Keynotes Hee-Chan Lew, Korean National University of Education, Korea. His

presentation title was: “The “analysis” method for construction problems in the dynamic geometry.” First of all, he explained the meaning of analysis: A working backward strategy to find a construction or deductive proof methods in geometric problems. Pappus, the Greek mathematician in AD 3rdcentury, systemized in his book “The Collections.” It has not been used after his era, in my opinion, because of the lack of drawing tools to operate the method efficiently. He also stated that Digital Geometry is an environment to revive the analysis method of Pappus who criticized Euclid’s deductive method so called “synthesis.”While, in BC 3rd century Euclid wrote the great books so called “Elements” based on mathematical activities of 300 years from BC 6th to BC 3rd century. It has been a typical geometry textbook of mankind for over 2000 years. It has been a typical geometry textbook of

9

mankind for over 2000 years. It was written by an axiomatic and deductive method. It has been used as an unique textbook to develop students’ deductive proof ability since Greek era. It was edited as a textbook for a small group of elite students at the time of BC 3rd Century. It might be not proper for ordinary students, like in nowadays, who dislike mathematics seriously, particularly dislike proof.It can be concluded that “Elements” does not show the process of mathematical discovery as follows: (1) imagination, (2) experimentation, (3) reasonable guess, (4) analogy, (5) trial and error, (6) (sometimes) mistakes and failure. It gives only final results by mathematicians without showing the behind story. It makes normal teachers easy to explain the proof process appeared in the books one by one. However it is difficult for students to get the reason why the particular proof method was selected. It makes students think mathematics a very difficult subject. Therefore the New Direction for Euclidean Geometry: (1) Students must reconstruct the construction process and design its proving process by themselves rather than absorbing the proceeses from teachers. (2) Students must think independently and productively. (3) Intuition, guessing, investigation, measuring, and trial and error. The New Method that can be proposed: (1) It is almost impossible in Paper and Pencil environment. (2) Furthermore DG does not guarantee the success. (3) We need a special method in DG to improve deductive proof abilities of ordinary students.The analysis can provide an alternative teaching method for Euclidean geometry which is very difficult to normal students. The Oldest strategy among the mathematics heuristics. Pythagorean school also emphasized the analysis but, in “Elements” not appeared. In AD 3rdcentury, Pappus systemized it in his famous book, “the collections”. In analysis, we assume that which is sought as if it were already done and we inquire what it is from which this resultsand again until we come up something already known or belonging to the class of first principles. In synthesis, reversing the analysis, we take as already done that which was last arrived at in the analysis and we arrive finally at the construction of what was sought. Greek thought the dialectic integration of analysis and synthesis as a substance of mathematical thought. However, Euclid’s Elements considered the synthesis to reduce theorems from the foundationasa way to guarantee the truth of mathematics. DG is dynamic. It can make student perform various experiment to find necessary conditions by drawing, erasing and manipulating figures easily as well as dynamically. In paper and pencil circumstance, it is almost impossible to perform analysis because the figure drawn on the paper cannot be manipulated.The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix V.

Shizumi Shimizu, Teikyo University, Japan. His presentation title was: “On Historical Development of Mathematical Activity.” He explain the importance of the Activity that has been used and applied in Japan.

10

Gabriel Matney, Bowling Green State University, USA. His presentation title was: “The Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.” The agenda of his presentation: (1) Brief Viewing of Early US Mathematics Education History, (2) Brief Discussion of Learning from Other Nations, (3) Basics of the Common Core State Standards and (4) Curricular Research and Connections. He also stated that learning from the success of other countries, such as Japan and Germany, it was possible for mathematics educators to have a renewed conversation with parents, teachers, policy makers, and politicians.

*Image recreated from Schmidt, McKnight, & Raizen (1997)2

Another stark difference between the USA and more successful nations dealt with the amount of time a topic spanned. Instead of taking a topic and going very deep with it, USA curriculum’s typically spread it out over many grade levels. The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix W.

Maitree Inprasitha, Khon Kaen University, Thailand. His presentation was: “The Reform of Curriculum and Instruction System.” His presentation can be classified into: (1) Problem about Curriculum and Instruction, (2) How to solve Problem, (3) Analysis of the Curriculum and Instruction Systems of Different Countries, and (4) Concluding Remarks. In his opinion, the term “Curriculum and Instruction” is so widely used in the field of education that these two words have become almost inseparable. However, in educational practices these two entities are separated. It may be that this misunderstandings terms from the meaning of each word as curriculum relates to content, the “what”, whereas instruction defines method, the “how”. The Problems about Curriculum and Instruction in Thailand are: (1) The curriculum development was intervened and lack of continuity, (2) Now, there is lack of coherence in the curriculum in each level, (3) The influence of testing in guiding teaching, (4) Lack of measures to control and monitor curriculum quality/special programs of schools. Thus, the problem of how to effectively implementing curriculum needs to be addressed. To solve the problems, it can be proposed: Lack of perspective regarding the “Paradigm Shift from Products to Product –Process Approaches” The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix X.

11

February 16, Day 2

Keynotes

Takuya Baba, IDEC, Hiroshima University, Japan. His presentation was: “Verb-based Curriculum for Mathematics Education.” He stated that: (1) Knowledge-based society require more than knowledge, (2) From Quantity of knowledge to Quality of knowledge (knowledge about knowledge, systematization of knowledge), (3) Mathematics plays an important role in this quality of knowledge. He provoke the importance of mathematical activity. Counting, measuring are examples of mathematical activities. They are primary activity, and are reflected and deepened. New course of study put emphasis on learning mathematics “through mathematical activity” at all stages of school education (MEXT 2008). According to constructivism (Nakahara 1995), children play a major role in mathematical activity not only on the real objects but also on mathematical objects. The reason why verbs as signifier are fewer than nouns, lies in the property of activity as signified that is instantaneous and does not retain its locus of movement very long. For example, the activity 'to count' can be perceived by means of eyes and ears, but it only remains as an afterimage for a while and then its existence cannot be perceived by our senses any longer. The way of counting sheep and the way of counting sheets of paper are different. Probably the former is pointing at each sheep at a time, and continues one after another until it covers all. The latter may be turning over the pages. The verbs, ‘to deepen’ and ‘to extend’, similarly represent the nature of mathematical activity. When new knowledge has been developed based activity towards the previous knowledge that has been learned before. For example, “deepen their understanding of the meaning and the representations of numbers” in the grade 2 assumes the learning and understanding of the numbers in the grade 1. The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix Y.

Supattra Pativisan, Assistant to President, Institute of Promotion of Science, Thailand. Her presentation was: “For the possible challenges for reform.” She informed that information for curriculum development can be found by: (1) Survey, (2) Other countries’ present national curriculum, (3) Research and documents, (4) Experts’ recommendation from: (a) IPST and other institutes, (b) domestic and international, and (5) Public hearing. Challenges of the reform: (1) Curriculum: (a) The standard-based curriculum, (b) The school-based curriculum. (2) Curriculum authorities: change from MOE/IPST to Schools. (3) Decision making on textbooks and instructional materials: (a) change from MOE/IPST to Schools and (b) criteria for approval textbooks. (4) Compulsory education: (a) extend from 6 to 9 years and (b) free education. (5) School population has been increased: (a) Teacher shortage, (b) Teacher workload and expertise, and (c) Material resources shortage.

12

For future Curriculum we need: (1) Re-organize the contents in order to conform to science contents. (2) Update the contents to support the learning in the 21st century. (3) Focus on applying knowledge to real world situation. (4) Reduce contents, emphasis on foundation of knowledge, and increase time to do activity. (5) Focus on learning activities that promote students to think, analyze, solve problem, communicate with others, and understand their own thought through reasoning. (6) More relation to everyday lives and integration with skills for learning in the 21st century. The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix Z.

Fumi Ginshima, Curriculum and Assessment Division, National Institute for Educational Policy Research, Japan. Her presentation was: “On Japanese Junior High School Mathematics Assessment.”

Aida Yap, Masami Isoda, and Guillermo P. Bautista Jr, National Institute for Science and Mathematics Education Development, the University of Philippines. Their presentation was: “Question and Answer for Geometry in Japanese Textbook.”

Presentation on the curriculum framework from SEAMEO countries Cheow Kian Soe. “Mathematics Curriculum Framework of Singapore

Mathematics Syllabus.” The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix Z1 1 and Appendix Z1 2.

Elizabeth Catao: “K to 12 Mathematics Curriculum in the Philippine.” The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix Z2.

Outhit Thipmany: “National Mathematics Curriculum in Lao PDR.” The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix Z3.

Soe Hlaing: “National Mathematics Curriculum in Myanmar.” The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix Z4.

Supattra Pativisan: “Thailand Mathematics Curriculum Framework.” The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix Z5.

Radin Halim, Malaysia. “Mathemathics Curriculum in Malaysia.” The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix Z6.

Sudjatmiko Karsiman: “The National Curriculum for Mathematics in Primary and Secondary Education.” The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix Z7.

February 17, Day 3

Workshop on Proof

Mikio Miyazaki, Shinshu University, Japan. On Geometry for Development of Critical Thinking. The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix Z8.

Workshop on Proof from the project between Japan and UK: Mikio Miyazaki. The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix

Z9. Kimiho Chino. The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix

Z10.

13

Kotaro Komatsu, Shinshu University. The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix Z11.

Discussions on SEA-BES

February 18, Day 4

Discussions on SEA-BES for setting the Framework

Special keynotes for Curriculum Specialists, Provided by Leading Researchers in the World under ICME Survey Team under Barbara Jaworski, (President of IGPME, UK)

Barbara Jaworski, Loughborough University, UK. Her presentation was: “Developing university mathematics teaching through collaborative inquiry: teacher-researchers working and learning.” The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix ZA.

Merrilyn Goos. The University of Queensland, Australia. Her presentation was: “Transforming professional practice: Teaching numeracy across the curriculum.” The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix ZB.

Marie Joubert, African Institute for Mathematical Sciences, South Africa. Her presentation was: “On Geometry for Development of Critical Thinking.” The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix ZC.

Olive Chapman, University of Calgary, Canada. Her presentation was: “Curiosity-Based Knowing in Developing an Inquiry Stance in Teaching Mathematics.” The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix ZD.

Alison Clark-Wilson, UCL Knowledge Lab, University College, London, UK. Her presentation was: “Technology in mathematics education: Implications for professional development Technology in mathematics education: Implications for professional development.” The Presentation can be seen and studied on Appendix ZE.

Closing for Satellite Meeting for SEAMEO RECSAM-University of Tsukuba Joint Seminar: Searching for Quality Mathematics Curriculum Framework on the Era of Globalization

Conclusions1. The ability to think and to reason is very important to everyone. During the conference, the issue was how anticipate the change in the future. It must include the ability to find issues by oneself, to learn by oneself, to think by oneself, to make decisions independently and to act. The questions aroused among others was what should be done and how to help and facilitate mathematics teachers in such a way that they can change their teaching and learning process such that they can help the learners to learn mathematics meaningfully, to learn to think and be independent learners. The answer to the question, among others, was

14

lesson study. However, lesson study is a kind of cultural activity. Teachers develop the system by and for themselves.

2. Lesson study (LS) has successfully changed the teaching and learning mathematics in Japan to be more student-cantered. The teaching and learning processes are usually started with the problem. The focus of the teaching and learning processes is on problem solving.

3. LS emphasized in Japanese culture is not only on the collaboration between mathematics teachers and mathematics education experts, but also, more importantly, the emphasize is on how to change the process of teaching and learning mathematics in class such that mathematics could be more easily understood by every student. In addition, we could also conclude that mathematics teachers in Japan have successfully helped their students to think, to reason, and to communicate mathematically which can be categorized as high order thinking skills (HOTS). These conclusions match Indonesian content knowledge standard that teaching and learning mathematics should be focused on problem solving and the learning process could be started with realistic or contextual problems.

4. The spirit of working together among experts and participants is very important to the success of the conference.

5. The aims of learning mathematics in Indonesia are to help children to be competent in mathematics relate to content knowledge, reasoning (inductive and deductive), problem solving, communications, and positive attitudes toward mathematics. The teaching and learning processes as results of LS in Japan match those aims of learning of mathematics.

6. The meeting was conducted successfully. The success of the meeting was based on the spirit of working together among them to learn and to share ideas.

Recommendation

1. LS may be implemented in Indonesia and in SEAMEO member countries in order to enhance the quality of teaching and learning mathematics in primary and secondary schools. However, we should take into account that lesson study is a kind of cultural activity. Teachers develop the system by and for themselves. Therefore, we need to change the mindset, attitude, and disposition of the mathematics teachers and educators in Indonesia about mathematics, students, learning, mathematical thinking and mathematical process, delivery system, assessment, textbook and the Lesson Study itself.

2. However, there are several things should be taken into account, among them are as follows.

15

a. The LS emphasizes not only on the collaboration between mathematics teachers and mathematics education experts; but should be also on how to change the process of teaching and learning mathematics in such a way to be more easily understood by every students.

b. The LS also aims at learning mathematics, e.g. to help children to be competent in mathematics content knowledge, reasoning (inductive and deductive), problem solving, communications and positive attitudes toward mathematics.

c. The culture of Indonesian teachers (such as, some of them are seemingly ‘shy’ and ‘quiet’ in discussing or in arguing about their teaching plan); could be constrained by using LS as an alternative or strategy in developing the professionalism of mathematics teachers. My question is, based on Japanese experience, what kind of culture, belief systems or behaviours are needed in implementing the LS? In your experience, how to change (modify) the culture, belief systems or behaviours to be more easily adapted in implementing the LS successfully?

d. Based on my experience as a resource person and an instructor; in planning lesson, teachers and mathematics education experts also need high quality resource materials (such as mathematics text books, examples of lesson plan, materials from website/blog, periodicals, films, or VCD). How to maximize the use of resource materials in implementing the LS?

e. Based on the issue during the conference, the important question was how to anticipate the change in the future. It must include the ability to find issues by oneself, to learn by oneself, to think by oneself, to make decisions independently and to act. The questions aroused was what should be done and how to help and facilitate mathematics teachers in such a way that they can change their teaching and learning process such that they can help the learners to learn mathematics meaningfully, to learn to think and be independent learners.

3. In order to ensure that the aims of learning of mathematics in Indonesia is to help children to be competent in mathematics relate to content knowledge, reasoning (inductive and deductive), problem solving, communications, and positive attitudes toward mathematics, then these are several recommendation should be considered.a. Knowledge-based society require more than knowledge only.b. The focus of teaching and learning of mathematics in Indonesia not

only on mathematical content knowledge but should be on process of teaching and learning such as thinking, reasoning, problem solving, communicating, representing and connecting.

c. Indonesian students should learn mathematics inductively to ensure that our students will learn thinking, reasoning, problem solving, communicating, representing and connecting. Indonesian students should also learn mathematics deductively to ensure that our students will learn to write a proof and argumentation.

16

d. The teaching and learning of mathematics that focus also on process of teaching such as thinking, reasoning, problem solving, communicating, representing and connecting.

e. Learning mathematics inductively need more time than only learn mathematics deductively. Therefore we need to reduce the number of topics that must be studied our students to ensure that the focus on learning is not only on content knowledge but also on process or activities.

4. Based on the experience of Japanese experts in pioneering and developing the successful LS, it would be better if we work together with Japanese experts.

Note.The appendices can be found on www.fadjarp3g.wordpress.com

17