Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Mathematics education around the world has increasingly come under scrutiny for how well it supports not only academic achievement but also students’ holistic development, including their values. As national curriculum reforms continue to prioritise valuing in teaching and learning, understanding how valuing pedagogies are integrated becomes crucial. This study sought to contribute to the ongoing discourse on mathematics education in Ghana, highlighting the importance of aligning curricular goals with pedagogical practices that support students’ values development. It reports on the differences and similarities in valuing pedagogies across grade levels of the Ghanaian mathematics curricula. Content analysis was performed on three purposively sampled mathematics curricula—lower primary, upper primary, and junior high school mathematics curricula. The references to valuing pedagogies were counted and further analysed using percentages and chi-square tests of independence, supported with excerpts from the curricula. The results revealed that all three curricula emphasise affective and cognitive valuing pedagogies over social valuing pedagogies. In addition, the espousal of social valuing pedagogies decreases from lower primary to junior high school, whereas cognitive and affective valuing pedagogies increase. Across lower primary, upper primary, and junior high school curricula, serious learning, domain learning, achievement, and realising learning consistently outrank their complements: playful learning, life learning, EDI, and saving face. The chi-square test (χ² > 5.991) further revealed significant differences in the representation of valuing pedagogy pairs across grade levels, except for domain and life learning. The implications of the results and recommendations for further studies are discussed accordingly.

Keywords

grade level values valuing pedagogies mathematics curriculum

Introduction

Mathematics is a crucial component of curricula worldwide, promoting intellectual growth and analytical thinking. In addition to acquiring knowledge, students’ engagement with mathematics influences their perspectives and attitudes towards the subject. Global assessments like the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) emphasise the significance of not only content mastery but also the values and dispositions students develop towards mathematics (Mullis et al., 2020).

In that regard, recent educational reforms in various countries have increasingly emphasised integrating values into mathematics curricula. Barwell et al. (2024) argue that a major change in the recent mathematics curriculum in Norway and Ontario, Canada, is the explicit inclusion of values. For example, the Norwegian curriculum incorporates pedagogical activities that seek the development of six values: human dignity; identity and cultural diversity; critical thinking and ethical awareness; the joy of creating, engagement and the urge to explore; respect for nature and environmental awareness, and democracy and participation (Ministry of Education & Research, 2017). These are the core values that need to be prioritised in the teaching of curriculum subjects, including mathematics.

In Ghana, the mathematics curriculum has undergone several revisions aimed at improving educational outcomes. Ghana’s Ministry of Education (MOE), like other ministries of education around the world, has recognised the need for a robust mathematical foundation by explicitly defining values teachers should teach through their valuing pedagogies ( Ministry of Education [MOE], 2020). While governments around the world, including Ghana, have become intentional about integrating values in mathematics, current research attention has been given to looking at best practices to address valuing deficiencies (Carr, 2019). There remains a gap in understanding how these curricular changes have purposely laid down valuing pedagogies aiming at developing students’ values. Also, grade level differences have been overlooked by many studies that looked at values espoused in mathematics curriculum documents and tasks internationally and locally (Barwell et al., 2024; Essien & Davis, 2024; Ismail & Imawan, 2023). Meanwhile, grade level differences have been reported among students valuing (Carr et al., 2023; Davis et al., 2019).

Theoretical Basis: Valuing Pedagogies in Mathematics Education

Seah (2019) defined valuing as “an individual’s embracing of convictions in mathematics pedagogy which are of importance and worth personally” (p. 107). Key to this definition is that there should be a pedagogical activity which will provide the context for students’ value development. These pedagogical activities are termed as valuing pedagogies (Chiu & Seah, 2024). Chiu and Seah referred to valuing pedagogies as instructional strategies and practices that instil values in students. These teaching methods and practices are usually spelt out in curriculum documents. Teachers are hence encouraged to adopt the appropriate stated pedagogies to achieve the aim of the curriculum. For instance, it is stated in the Ghanaian curriculum that:

The CCP [common core programme] emphasises creative and inclusive pedagogies that are anchored on authentic and enquiry-based learning, collaborative and cooperative learning, differentiated learning, holistic learning, cross disciplinary learning (i.e. the 4Rs across the Curriculum) as well as developing the core competencies ( MOE, 2020, p. xxii).

Thus, through these pedagogical activities, teachers guide learners to ensure they attain the expected proficiency at each grade level. Examining mathematical pedagogical activities in affect-focussed lessons, Chiu & Seah’s (2024) study identified six complementary pairs of valuing pedagogies, categorised under cognitive, affective, and social aspects. The explicit against implicit learning, and playful against serious learning were identified under the affective aspect, domain against life learning, and quality against quantity were identified under the cognitive aspect. In contrast, achievement against Equity, Diversity and Inclusivity (EDI), and saving face against realising learning were identified under the social aspect of valuing pedagogies.

Affective aspect: The affective aspect has two complementary valuing pedagogy pairs, namely explicit learning – implicit learning and playful learning—serious learning. In a complementary nature, explicit learning refers to teaching methods that emphasise learning based on external features, whereas valuing implicit learning implies learning that emphasises internal reflection and mathematical thinking. This dimension is particularly important for fostering conceptual understanding and learner autonomy, both of which are central to meaningful mathematical learning (Boaler, 2016). On the other hand, valuing serious learning implies emphasising pedagogies that are concerned much with a deep comprehension of concepts behind the activities students perform, whereas playful learning considers the fun nature of mathematical tasks. Playful learning complements serious in a way that sees mathematical activities as fun sustains students’ interest required to engage in serious learning. Emphasising playfulness with seriousness can increase students’ emotional attachment to mathematics, contributing to sustained interest and positive identity development (Darling-Hammond, 2017; Fisher et al., 2012; Rice, 2009; Wouters et al., 2017). At the same time, these emphases may also reflect global neoliberal reforms that privilege measurable competencies and outcomes, raising the question of whether Ghana’s curriculum choices reflect international pressures or culturally specific orientations towards values in mathematics education (Darling-Hammond, 2017).

Cognitive Aspect: Quality—quantity and life learning—domain learning are the two complementary pairs that fall under the cognitive aspect. Quality learning refers to teaching methods that stress having control over the understanding of mathematical concepts. This resonates with Kilpatrick et al.’s (2001) notion of mathematical proficiency, which includes conceptual understanding, strategic competence, and adaptive reasoning. Thus, valuing quality learning implies using a variety of representations to model a mathematical concept which deepens understanding. Conversely, valuing quantity involves finding new ideas, approaches, and algorithms and acquiring new knowledge important. Complementing quality learning, quantity learning emphasises mathematical creativity and innovation, as learners explore multiple pathways of solving diverse mathematical problems (Leikin, 2009).

Valuing life learning - domain learning refers to prioritisation of the immediate use of mathematics knowledge in everyday contexts and its application to real-world situations, (Life learning) and, on the other hand, emphasising abstract mathematical knowledge or theories (Domain learning). Social Aspect: The two complementary valuing pedagogies pairs that fall under the social aspect are Achievement—Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) and realising learning—saving face. Pedagogies that stress students valuing their achievements as the results of social interaction (Achievement) or ensuring that participants engaging in the social interaction have an equal chance to achieve the goal of the task and are not left out in performing the task or in the overall instructional process (EDI). Moreover, saving face involves students being considerably concerned about how their performance in the social group might have a positive or negative effect on their social status. On the other hand, realising learning emphasises the opportunity that peer interaction and teacher-student interaction provide for students to learn. Achievement in mathematics is often co-constructed through collaborative tasks, group discussions, and peer explanation, all of which have shown strong effects on student learning (Webb et al., 2014). However, the presence of performance pressure or fear of failure can lead to poor identity, where students are reluctant to participate due to social stigma associated with being wrong (Jackson, 2011). Promoting a safe classroom culture that balances these concerns encourages all students to take risks and learn from errors. Linking this to learner agency, studies such as Han and Hyland (2015) show how students’ willingness to engage with teacher feedback is mediated by autonomy and cultural expectations of authority. This suggests that valuing pedagogies like explicit–implicit learning and saving face–realising learning are not only teacher-driven but also co-constructed through learners’ perceptions of voice, motivation, and agency in the classroom.

Since values are culturally dependent, it is argued that the valuing pedagogies proposed in this framework may not be the same across the Ghanaian cultural context. However, since studies have shown different cultures developing similar values, although with different emphasis (Davis et al., 2024; Hill et al., 2022; Seah & Bishop, 2000), then different cultures may portray similar valuing pedagogies. The reason has been that usually, these pedagogical activities are characteristic of mathematics teaching and learning and are less likely to be different in other cultures, especially curricula that are described as western (see Seah et al., 2017; Bishop, 1988). Valuing pedagogies discussed in the study’s framework is evident. For instance, it is clearly articulated in numerous mathematics classrooms and curriculum documents that educators are expected to connect the mathematics content and instruction to students’ life experiences and real-world applications (portraying life learning—domain learning). Therefore, the Ghanaian case offers an important lens to examine how valuing pedagogies are simultaneously shaped by global neoliberal discourses on accountability and culturally situated traditions of collective learning. This dual perspective highlights the need to view valuing pedagogies as both descriptive categories and as dynamic practices negotiated between teachers, students, and curriculum policies.

Values and Valuing Across Grade Levels

Numerous value studies conducted have focussed on taking research data from different grade levels, yet there is a paucity of research that looks at grade-level differences and similarities (Davis et al., 2019). The few studies looking at grade-level differences focussed on students’ values. Studies on values involving documents such as national curriculum, textbooks, workbooks, and modelling tasks do not focus on valuing differences (i.e., Dede, 2006; Dede et al., 2021; Essien & Davis, 2024). For instance, Seah and Bishop (2000) compared values espoused from different cultural contexts. Although Seah and Bishop’s preliminary study analysed different grade-level texts, their main aim was to compare values espoused in different cultures.

Despite these gaps, studies have shown valuing differences of students across grade levels. For instance, as primary students in China prioritise values such as ability, effort, and diligence, secondary students emphasise knowledge and mathematical thinking more. Seah et al. (2019) also revealed a statistically significant difference between Japanese students’ values across grade levels. Moreover, Eastern Chinese students have been influenced by achievement pressure and valuing attributes such as memorisation and control (Tang et al., 2021) as they progress from primary to secondary school. If students’ values are influenced by what they have been taught, then research attention should not turn completely away from what is intended to be taught.

Thus, as these students’ valuing differences and similarities exist, there is a need to look at the major source of these values—the intended curriculum defined in curriculum documents (Davis et al., 2019). Research such as this might contribute to the understanding of valuing differences in the’ curriculum attained by students at different grade levels.

Ghanaian Mathematics Curricula and Values

The current pre-tertiary mathematics curriculum is divided into lower primary (grades 1–3), upper primary (grades 4–6), Junior High School (JHS; grades 7–9), and Senior High School (SHS; grades 10–12) levels. Each curriculum spells out the aims and standards to attain at each level. Before the introduction of the current curriculum, the Ghanaian mathematics curriculum was objective-based. The curriculum laid down a set of objectives that students are expected to achieve at the end of the academic year, which are levelled down into individual lesson objectives. However, the current mathematics curriculum focuses on standards instead of objectives.

The current standard-based curriculum focuses on developing core competencies. These core competencies include critical thinking and problem solving, creativity and innovation, communication and collaboration, cultural identity and global citizenship, personal development and leadership, and digital literacy (MOE, 2018). These core competencies are in the lower primary, upper primary, and JHS curricula. Thus, lower primary, upper primary, and JHS curricula share the same core competencies.

Learners are expected to achieve some level of proficiency at the end of each academic year to progress to the next level. Notwithstanding, students who did not achieve the proficiency level are not repeated as it happened in the previous curriculum, but rather progress and are given extra attention to make up for their deficiencies. This also poses a challenge as students may not make up for the deficient competencies due to the curriculum overload in the next grade level, leading to cognitive deficits (Davis et al., 2022).

The previous curriculum strictly followed the three learning domains, namely, cognitive, affective and psychomotor. As a result, the objectives were tailored to develop students’ knowledge, attitudes and skills. Conative variables, such as values, had no place in curriculum documents. To address such gaps the current mathematics curriculum defines its profile of learning behaviour dimension to include knowledge and understanding, application of knowledge, and attitudes, values and process skills. Explicitly introducing values in the Ghanaian curriculum, MOE (2020, p. xvii) states “Values: As such, every part of this curriculum, including the related pedagogy is consistent with the following set of values”: respect, diversity, equity, commitment to achieving excellence, teamwork/collaboration, and truth and integrity. These core values run through all the other disciplines and all grade levels. Bishop (1996) considers these values as general educational values which are not peculiar to mathematics pedagogical practices.

The curriculum encourages teachers to assess all the domains of learning behaviour, including values. Nevertheless, there are no clear-cut strategies for assessing students’ values in the curriculum, thus suggesting that teachers implicitly measure them through their class exercises, assignments, project works, etc. In such a context, there is always the likelihood of teachers neglecting or not giving much attention to difficult-to-assess hidden traits such as values (Chan & Wong, 2019). In addition, the National Standardised Test (NST) is conducted to “Generate data at the national level on how well learners in Ghana’s schools are meeting the standards of the curriculum” (MOE, 2023a, p.1). The NST aims at assessing learners’ numeracy and literacy proficiency at Basic 2, 4 and 8. Reports from this assessment are used to guide learning in the next academic phase. In the mathematics context, even though the NST aimed at assessing the attained curriculum, it strictly focussed on computation skills without paying much attention to other learning behaviours such as attitudes and values. For instance, MOE (2023b) describes the framework of the Basic 2 mathematics NST results as stated:

The mathematics contained eight subtasks that measured a range of numeracy skills, from procedural to conceptual. The subtasks were: number identification, number discrimination practice, missing numbers, addition level 1 and 2, subtraction level 1 and 2 and word problems practice (p. 7).

Although the previous curriculum did not explicitly include values, studies conducted at the time revealed students acquiring values implicitly (Seah et al., 2017 ; Davis et al., 2019). That is, teachers teach students values unknowingly, and are also not certain of the source of the values students learn. Thus, it is worthwhile to consider integrating values in the mathematics curriculum.

Moreover, it is argued that even though values are stated in the introductory sections of curriculum documents, they are not integrated fully throughout the pedagogical activities in the curriculum. Hence, if the current curriculum focuses on values, there should be evidence showing valuing pedagogies that support teaching and learning of mathematics, which should, in the long run, contribute to the development of the values. For instance, as it is stated that the curriculum integrates values such as diversity and equity, there should be a likelihood of identifying valuing pedagogies such as EDI. Thus, viewing the Ghanaian mathematics curricula through the lens of valuing pedagogies clearly indicates how well values are represented in the curricula.

Research Questions

The study sought to answer the following research questions:

What are the commonalities in valuing pedagogies espoused in the lower primary, upper primary, and JHS Ghanaian mathematics curricula?

What are the differences in valuing pedagogies espoused in the lower primary, upper primary, and JHS Ghanaian mathematics curricula?

How are the complementary valuing pedagogy pairs portrayed across lower primary, upper primary, and JHS in the Ghanaian mathematics curricula?

Research Methods

Research Design

This paper forms part of a larger study that looked at general educational values, valuing pedagogies, and the relationship between the values and valuing pedagogies in the Ghanaian mathematics curriculum. The study adopts a qualitative research design, specifically employing content analysis to explore how valuing pedagogies in the Ghanaian mathematics curricula for Lower Primary, Upper Primary, and Junior High School (JHS) are espoused. Content analysis allows for a systematic examination of curricular documents to identify themes and patterns related to the incorporation of values in mathematics education (Neuman, 2007).

Curricula Selection

The study focussed on the lower primary, upper primary, and JHS mathematics curricula. These curricula were selected due to the similarity in frameworks used to develop them. All three curricula are standards-based and focus on developing the same core competencies. More importantly, all three curricula defined the same values: commitment to achieving excellence, equity, diversity, truth and integrity, teamwork\collaboration, and respect (MOE, 2019a, 2019b, 2020). These curricula focus on values and provide ideal data for analysis using a valuing pedagogies framework (Chiu & Seah, 2024) to address the research objective. Moreover, it will contribute to how mathematics curricula of the same culture and framework can espouse similar or different valuing pedagogies.

Data Collection

The primary data sources are the official curricula documents for Lower Primary, Upper Primary, and JHS mathematics. These documents were obtained from NaCCA’s website (https://nacca.gov.gh/learning-areas-subjects/new-standards-based-curriculum-2019/#1554979862927-4c1cecfa-0cf1). Table 1 gives background information of the three curricula. The entire document was considered for analysis, yet certain pages, such as the list of curriculum contributors, front page, blank pages, etc., were not considered for analysis. This exclusion criterion was strictly adhered to in all curricula, and the number of pages analysed in each curriculum is reported in Table 1. The number of pages shows how voluminous the curriculum becomes when progressing through grade levels. The upper primary mathematics curriculum is about twice the size of the lower primary mathematics curriculum whereas the JHS mathematics curriculum is about three times the size of the lower primary mathematics curriculum.

Table 1.

The Lower Primary, Upper Primary and JHS Mathematics Curricula.

Curriculum	Grade level	Students’ age range	Source	Pages analysed
Lower primary mathematics curriculum	Basic 1–3 (Grade 1–3)	6–9 years	MOE (2019a)	87/95
Upper primary mathematics curriculum	Basic 4–6 (Grade 4–6)	9–12 years	MOE (2019b)	175/183
JHS mathematics curriculum	Basic 7–9 (Grade 7–9)	12–15 years	MOE (2020)	243/259

Data Analysis

The three curricula documents were read through multiple times to gain an initial understanding of the content after loading into NVivo software, followed by the creation of initial codes using Chiu & Seah (2024) valuing pedagogies framework. However, since the framework is being utilised in a different cultural context, the data was coded openly to identify any emerging themes. A code book (see Appendix 1) was developed using the framework to guide the coding process. For example, the curriculum statement

“Use objects and pictorial models to solve word problems involving joining, separating, and comparing sets within 20 …” (LP1, p. 6)

was coded under explicit learning due to its emphasis on externally structured, object-based instructional strategies. Conversely, the statement

“Count by 1s (forwards and backwards)… Identify and correct errors or omissions in counting or skip counting sequences.” (LP1, p. 2)

was categorised under implicit learning, as it promotes learner reflection, self-monitoring, and internalisation of mathematical thinking processes. Further, the pedagogical statement:

“Recognise Ghanaian coins by name, including one pesewa, five pesewas, ten pesewas, twenty pesewas, fifty pesewas and one cedi by value and describe the relationship among them.” (LP2, p. 21)

was identified as an instance of life learning, given its emphasis on financial literacy and the application of mathematics to real-world contexts.

Each of these instances was recorded as a single reference in NVivo under its respective valuing pedagogy. The entire document was systematically coded for each value and its corresponding valuing pedagogy in sequence. This method captured all underlying values and their occurrences, acknowledging that a single pedagogical activity or mathematical task might embody multiple values simultaneously.

NVivo’s matrix feature was then employed to analyse the distribution of references and percentages across various grade levels for interpretation. Ultimately, the results were presented as coded valuing pedagogies alongside their reference counts and percentages, which were used to address the research questions. The interpretation and discussion of the results were primarily done with references to the percentages, since the number of pages can influence the number of references. A curriculum with more pages is likely to have more references, which can make comparing values across curricula misleading. In this study, Table 1 shows huge curriculum page differences; hence, the references alone might not provide enough benchmarks for comparison. Percentages were calculated for each valuing pedagogy proportional to the total number of references of all valuing pedagogies in the same curriculum.

In response to research questions 1 and 2, individual valuing pedagogies were compared across grade levels to check similarities or observable trends (differences) respectively. Also, since valuing pedagogies are in pairs, there was a need to check how they balance or otherwise across grade levels in response to research question 3. In that regard, the percentages of the identified valuing pedagogies were calculated with their pair within the same curriculum. Significant differences were determined using the Chi-square test of independence. Excerpts from curriculum documents were used to support the findings. Excerpts taken from Lower Primary, Upper Primary, and JHS mathematics curricula were coded as LP1-3, UP4-6, and JHS 7-9, respectively. The numbers in the codes signify the specific grade level from which the excerpt was taken.

Validity and Reliability

The validity of the coding system was assessed by experts and specialists in values and valuing within mathematics education research, and its robustness was further supported by previous pertinent literature (Chiu & Seah, 2024; Chiu et al., 2025). Colleagues experienced in qualitative research were involved throughout the data analysis to review the coding process and thematic interpretations. Reliability remains a concern, given that the same statement may be interpreted in various ways (i.e., as different values) in latent coding. To mitigate this, findings across the three curricula were compared to identify common and contrasting themes. Additionally, the data were independently replicated by engaging two extra coders. Intercoder reliability was calculated using NVivo software, which yielded high-reliability scores (greater than 0.80; Neuman, 2007) with percentage agreements ranging from 85% to 96%, thus demonstrating a robust data system.

Results

Commonalities in Valuing Pedagogies Across Ghanaian Mathematics Curricula

The analysis revealed that all three curricula—Lower Primary, Upper Primary, and Junior High School (JHS)—incorporated cognitive, affective, and social aspects of valuing pedagogies. The distribution of valuing references across these three aspects showed a consistent pattern, with affective aspects receiving the highest emphasis, followed by cognitive aspects, and then social aspects. This pattern is presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Distribution of Aspects of Valuing Pedagogies References Across Grade Levels.

	Valuing pedagogies
Grade level	Reference	Affective	Cognitive	Social
Lower primary	Count	318	271	236
Lower primary	Percentage	38.55%	32.85%	28.61%
Upper primary	Count	1,098	882	325
Upper primary	Percentage	47.64%	38.26%	14.10%
JHS	Count	1,103	896	141
JHS	Percentage	51.54%	41.87%	6.59%

It can be seen from Table 2 that valuing of affective, cognitive and social aspects of pedagogies followed the same pattern in all the curricula. Thus, the high emphasis on the affective aspect followed by the cognitive and lastly by social valuing pedagogies was consistent at all grade levels.

In addition, all 12 valuing pedagogies were espoused in the curriculum with varying degrees of representation. Table 3 shows the references and their percentages of each valuing pedagogy as compared to the total valuing pedagogy references in each curriculum. The results give an overview of how each valuing pedagogy is prioritised more or less across grade levels. The criterion for considering the degree of prioritisation of a valuing pedagogy among other valuing pedagogies is by ranking the valuing pedagogies considering their references. The top 4 of the 12 valuing pedagogies are considered high prioritisation, whereas the bottom 4 of the 12 valuing pedagogies are considered less prioritisation.

Table 3.

Distribution of Percentages of References of Individual Valuing Pedagogies.

Valuing pedagogies	Lower primary	Upper primary	Junior high school
Explicit learning	152 (13.66%) ↑	616 (16.46%) ↑	440 (13.46%) ↑
Implicit learning	106 (9.52%)	523 (13.98%) ↑	573 (17.53%) ↑
Playful learning	73 (6.56%) ↓	71 (1.90%) ↓	29 (0.89%) ↓
Serious learning	110 (9.88%) ↑	722 (19.29%) ↑	776 (23.74%) ↑
Domain learning	135 (12.13%) ↑	438 (11.70%) ↑	575 (17.59%) ↑
Life learning	77 (6.92%)	253 (6.76%)	265 (8.11%)
Quality	102 (9.16%)	398 (10.64%)	189 (5.78%)
Quantity	95 (8.54%)	212 (5.67%)	240 (7.34%)
Achievement	158 (14.20%) ↑	207 (5.53%)	96 (2.94%)
EDI	74 (6.65%) ↓	96 (2.57%) ↓	19 (0.58%) ↓
Realising learning	17 (1.53%) ↓	138 (3.69%) ↓	54 (1.65%) ↓
Saving face	14 (1.26%) ↓	68 (1.82%) ↓	13(0.40%) ↓

Note.↑ = valuing pedagogies ranked in the top 4; ↓ = valuing pedagogies ranked in the last 4; EDI = equity, diversity and inclusion.

The results, as shown in Table 3, show similar prioritisation of valuing pedagogies in lower primary, upper primary and JHS curricula. The top four ranked valuing pedagogies include explicit learning, implicit learning, serious learning and domain learning, except the lower primary curriculum, where achievement replaced implicit learning in the rank. Also, the bottom four ranked valuing pedagogies (EDI, playful learning, realising learning, and saving face), showing less prioritisation, were consistent across all curricula. Three of these valuing pedagogies (i.e., EDI, realising learning, and saving face) are social aspects of valuing pedagogies supporting the initial findings that social aspects of valuing pedagogies are represented less across all the curricula. Playful learning, which falls under the affective aspect, was found among the less represented valuing pedagogies, showing an unbalanced representation as its pair (Serious learning) is highly prioritised in all curricula.

Differences in Valuing Pedagogy Across Ghanaian Mathematics Curricula

Value references differed as we looked at individual aspects across grade levels, as shown in Table 2. Emphasis on the affective aspect increased from lower primary (38.55%) to JHS (51.54%), as well as the cognitive aspect from lower primary (32.8%) to JHS (41.87%). That is, affective and cognitive valuing pedagogies having a high representation are also emphasised more moving up the grade level. On the contrary, the valuing of social pedagogies reduced across grade levels from lower primary (28.61%) to JHS (6.59%). The excerpts in Table 4 show how the emphasis on affective and cognitive pedagogies increases, whereas social pedagogies lessen moving across grade levels.

Table 4.

Excerpts of Valuing Pedagogies from the Three Curricula.

Case 1: LP3 (p. 48)	Case 2: UP6 (p.129)	Case 3: JHS7 (p. 9)
B3.1.2.1.1 Use standard strategy or procedure to do addition or subtraction within 1,000 E.g. 1. Explain the purpose of a symbol like a square or an underline in a given addition or subtraction mathematics sentence with one unknown (e.g.: 227 + □ = 609) E.g. 2. Create an addition or subtraction question with an unknown for a classmate to solve, and using either □ or ___ to represent the unknown	B6.1.2.6.2 Solve simple addition and subtraction problems involving integers (excluding subtraction of negative numbers) E.g. 1. Use number line to help learners to do the following types (addition) (1) 9 + −4 = _____ (2) −8 + 4 = _____ (3) −3 + −5 = _____ … E.g. 2. Learners do the following types (subtraction) (9) –5 to 1 = ___ (10) –2 to 1 = ___ (11) 8 to 7 = ___ …	B7.1.2.2.1 Add and subtract up to four-digit numbers. E.g.1. Use partitioning (or expanded form) and place value system to add and subtract whole and decimal numbers. (i) Add 785 and 9,342 785 = 700 + 80 + 5 +9,342 = 9000 + 300 + 40 + 2 10,127 = 9000 + 1000 + 120 + 7 (ii) Add 327.6 and 54.13 327.60 = 300 + 20 + 7 + _ + + 381.73 = 300 + 70 + 11 + + …

The excerpt depicts how cognitive and affective pedagogical practices are prioritised across grade levels. In teaching addition and subtraction at basic three (Case 1), learners are exposed to more friendly and less rigorous mathematical computations, whereas at basic 6 (Case 2) and basic 7 (Case 3), the rigorous mathematical activities increase, thus focussing more on the cognitive aspect. The excerpts are a few instances that demonstrate the valuing of social pedagogies in the lower primary mathematics curriculum, “teacher explaining,” and “creating questions for colleagues”. Looking at the same concept at the higher grade (grade 6) the curriculum emphasised teacher-learner interaction- “help learners to” while dropping learner-learner interaction. In addition, at the JHS, the curriculum focussed on the cognitive task without highlighting any social pedagogical practice.

This support results in Table 3 showing an increasing focus on serious learning, rising from 9.88% in the lower primary to 19.29% in the upper primary and peaking at 23.74% in JHS, suggesting a shift towards more structured, outcome-driven pedagogical strategies as students advance. Likewise, implicit learning, which fosters an internalised, conceptual grasp of mathematics, gained prominence from 9.52% in the lower primary to 13.98% in the upper primary and further to 17.53% in JHS, indicating a transition towards deeper learning experiences over time.

Case 4 demonstrates how content standards of strand 3—geometry—and sub-strand 1—line and space/shape and space—are stated in different grade levels.

Case 4: B2.3.1.1 Describe and analyse 2D shapes and 3D objects—LP2 p. 33

B5.3.1.1 Identify and sort quadrilaterals, including rectangles, squares, trapezoids, parallelograms, and rhombuses, according to their attributes—UP5. p. 94

B7.3.1.1 Demonstrate understanding of angles including adjacent, vertically opposite, complementary, supplementary and use them to solve problems JHS7, p.47

We see how less implicit activities such as ‘describe’ in the upper primary curriculum evolve to more implicit “identify”“, sort,”“demonstrating understanding” and “solve problems” at the upper primary and JHS, respectively. Also, the upwards trend of serious learning is demonstrated in Case 4 as students are tasked to describe general features of 2D and 3D objects at the lower primary level, but in the upper primary, they need to engage in more rigorous activities to identify specific 2D objects amidst several of them, even after knowing the features. At its peak, the JHS curriculum moved from knowing and sorting to applying the knowledge to solving problems, which is more demanding.

In contrast, the findings highlight a systematic de-emphasis on playful learning, EDI, realising learning, and saving face across all curricula. Playful learning declined significantly from 6.56% in the lower primary to 1.90% in the upper primary and nearly disappeared (0.89%) in JHS. This shift reflects an increasing focus on structured academic rigour at the expense of interactive and engaging pedagogies. The JHS curriculum allows little room for social interactions, as demonstrated in Case 3 and Case 4, and does not provide pedagogical practices that engage learners in playful activities. Similarly, EDI references decreased sharply from 6.65% in the lower primary to 2.57% in the upper primary and 0.58% in JHS, suggesting that inclusivity and fairness receive progressively less emphasis in higher grades. The declining emphasis on playful learning and EDI raises concerns about the balance between traditional academic expectations and the need for fostering creativity, enjoyable learning experiences, diversity, and inclusiveness in mathematics education.

Also, Explicit learning, domain learning, life learning, quality, quantity, realising learning, and saving face showed no trend across grade levels. Thus, although there are differences in valuing representations of these pedagogies, the differences do not show any observable pattern across grade levels from primary to JHS. It rather revealed the highest representation of quantity (8.54%) in the lower primary curriculum; explicit learning (16.46%), quality (10.64%), realising learning (3.69%), and saving face (1.89%) in the upper primary curriculum; serious learning (23.74%), domain learning (17.59%), and life learning (8.11%) in the JHS curriculum.

Portrayal of Complementary Valuing Pedagogy Pairs Across Grade Levels

Considering the disparities in valuing pedagogies of individual values across grade levels it is worth noting whether these differences influence the balance of the valuing pedagogy pairs. Thus, the data were further analysed to find out whether valuing pedagogy pairs are represented similarly or differently across the grade levels.

Commonalities Across Grade Levels

Firstly, the prioritisation of valuing pedagogies in each pair is similar in all curricula. Table 5 shows that serious learning, domain learning, achievement, and realising learning were emphasised over playful learning, life learning, EDI, and saving face in all grade levels. Explicit-implicit learning and quality-quantity valuing pedagogical pairs were prioritised similarly in lower and upper primary curricula, different from the JHS curriculum.

Table 5.

Distribution of Percentages of References of Valuing Pedagogy Pairs Across Grade Levels.

Valuing pedagogies		Lower primary	Upper primary	JHS
Affective aspect	Explicit learning	152(58.91%)	616 (54.08%)	440 (43.44%)
	Implicit learning	106 (41.09%)	523 (45.92%)	573 (56.56%)
	Playful learning	73 (39.89%)	71 (8.95%)	29 (3.60%)
	Serious learning	110 (60.11%)	722 (91.05%)	776 (96.40%)
Cognitive aspect	Domain learning	135 (63.68%)	438 (63.39%)	575 (68.45%)
	Life learning	77 (36.32%)	253 (36.61%)	265 (31.55%)
	Quality	102 (51.78%)	398 (65.25%)	189 (44.06%)
	Quantity	95(48.22%)	212 (34.75%)	240 (55.94%)
Social aspect	Achievement	158 (68.10%)	207 (68.32%)	96 (83.48%)
	EDI	74 (31.90%)	96 (31.68%)	19 (16.52%)
	Realising learning	17 (54.84%)	138 (66.99%)	54 (80.60%)
	Saving face	14 (45.16%)	68 (33.01%)	13 (19.40%)

Note. Note’s = junior high school.

For instance, the curriculum demonstration of the teaching of number identification in grade 2 states:

Case 5: B2.1.1.1.2 Identify numbers in different positions around a given number in a number chart. (1–1,000) for example, 1. Display a number chart with numbers between 0 and 100 and have learners identify numbers in different positions around a given number. Put learners in convenient groups and give each group a number grid and have them identify numbers in different positions around a chosen number—LP2, p21.

whereas in grade 5,

Case 6: B5.1.1.1.3 Identify numbers in different positions around a given number in a number chart for example, 1 Display a number chart in multiples of 1,500 between 10,000 and 1000,000 and lead learners identify numbers in different positions around a given number. Put learners in pairs and give each group a number grid and have them identify numbers in different positions around a chosen number—UP5, p.57

and finally in grade 7,

Case 7: E.g.4. Identify, read and write numbers in given positions in a number chart (chart omitted). For instance, which number is on the right of 3,187,500? Write the number in words—JHS1, p 4

Here, we see a similar valuing of explicit learning by making use of number charts that run across all the curricula. However, Case 5 and Case 6 show similar valuing of explicit learning as teachers display a “number chart” first, followed by a “number grid”. In Case 7, students identify numbers in the number chart and progress to writing the numbers in words. This shows that at JHS, less emphasis is placed on the explicit teaching of mathematics concepts and focuses more on the implicit meaning and understanding of the concepts. Also, Case 5 and Case 6 emphasise quality over quantity, whereas Case 7 prioritises quantity over quality, supporting the results displayed in Table 5. Thus, the lower primary and upper primary curricula as shown in Cases 5 and 6 respectively emphasise the use of different representations to display a mathematical concept, hence, highlighting quality in their pedagogy whereas at the JHS emphasis is on performing numerous mathematical tasks such as “identify,”“read,”“write” numbers, “which number is on the right of 3,187,500?” and “Write the number in words” highlighting valuing of quantity.

Also, valuing pedagogy pair that was nearly balanced in its representation is realising learning (54.84%)-saving face (45.16%), explicit learning (54.08%)-Implicit learning (45.92%), and quality (44.06%)-quantity (55.94%) in the lower primary, upper primary and JHS curricula respectively. Thus, not only does the lower primary curriculum prioritise the social aspect of valuing pedagogies compared to other grade levels, but it also ensures, to some extent, a balance in valuing pedagogical pairs. In addition, the balance shifted towards affective valuing pedagogies (explicit learning—implicit learning) at the upper primary and cognitive valuing pedagogies (quality—quantity) at the JHS. This shows a shift in prioritisation of valuing pedagogies at different stages in the curriculum, where the curriculum puts balancing of social, affective and cognitive valuing pedagogies in a spectrum as you move up grade levels.

Differences Across Grade Levels

The chi-square analysis across the three grade levels—Lower Primary, Upper Primary, and JHS—revealed that most valuing pedagogy pairs exhibit distinct patterns of emphasis as shown in Table 6.

Table 6.

Chi-Square Analysis of Valuing Pedagogy Pair Preferences Across Grade Levels.

Valuing pedagogy pair	Lower primary/upper primary/JHS		Lower primary/upper primary		Lower primary/JHS		Upper primary/JHS
Valuing pedagogy pair	χ² (df)	p-value	χ² (df)	p-value	χ² (df)	p-value	χ² (df)	p-value
Explicit versus implicit learning	33.24 (2)	<.00001	2.0 (1)	.1573	19.76 (1)	<.00001	24.40 (1)	<.00001
Playful versus serious learning	224.8 (2)	<.00001	113.15 (1)	<.00001	211.76 (1)	<.00001	19.55 (1)	<.0001
Domain learning versus life learning	4.84 (2)	.0889	0.01 (1)	.9203	1.74 (1)	.1871	4.36 (1)	.0368
Quality versus quantity	47.34 (2)	<.00001	11.51 (1)	.0007	3.22 (1)	.0727	46.00 (1)	<.00001
Achievement versus EDI	10.68 (2)	.0048	0.002 (1)	.9643	9.26 (1)	.0023	9.58 (1)	.002
Realising learning versus saving face	7.04 (2)	.0296	1.77 (1)	.1834	7.04 (1)	.008	4.48 (1)	.0342

With the significance level set at χ² > 5.991 (p = .05, df = 2), explicit versus implicit learning (χ²(2) = 33.24, p < .00001), playful vs. serious learning (χ²(2) = 224.8, p < .00001), quality vs. quantity (χ²(2) = 47.34, p < .00001), achievement vs. EDI (χ²(2) = 10.68, p = .0048), and realising learning vs. saving face (χ²(2) = 7.04, p = .0296) varied significantly across grades, while domain vs. life learning (χ²(2) = 4.84, p = .0889) did not. Pairwise comparisons indicated significant shifts primarily between Lower Primary and JHS and between Upper Primary and JHS for most pedagogy pairs—for instance, explicit versus implicit learning (χ²(1) = 19.76–24.40, p < .00001) and playful vs. serious learning (χ²(1) = 19.55–211.76, p < .0001)—whereas some pedagogy pairs, such as explicit versus implicit learning between Lower and Upper Primary, were non-significant (χ²(1) = 2.0, p = .1573).

Thus, the results show a significant increase in prioritisation of realising learning, achievement, serious learning, and implicit learning against their valuing pedagogy pairs, saving face, EDI, and explicit learning, with a decrease in prioritisation.

These findings indicate that the emphasis on specific valuing pedagogy pairs shifts notably as students progress through the curriculum, except for domain learning and life learning, which appear relatively stable. These results are not surprising, per our discussions so far. As social valuing pedagogies are being dropped to prioritise affective and cognitive pedagogies, it would not be surprising that valuing pedagogies such as serious learning and implicit learning increase in prioritisation. It also contributed to the increase in valuing realising learning over saving face since any pedagogical activity that focuses less on social interaction will prioritise individual understanding of concepts and not social support, as depicted in Case 8.

Case 8:

E.g. 2 The table below shows the area of the sitting room floors of each of 7 real estate houses (A, B C, …) in Kwashiman

House	A	B	C	D	E	F	G
Area (m²)	22	24	26	30	48	30	30

i. In small groups, work out the mean, median, mode.

ii. Draw a bar chart to represent the data collected, and

iii. Explain why the values are the same -JHS2, p.159

Moreover, the upwards trend resulted in widening the gaps between valuing pedagogies pairs resulting in the JHS curriculum recording the highest percentage differences for achievement (83.48%)-EDI (16.52), realising learning (80.60%)-saving face (19.40), domain learning (68.45%)—life learning (31.55%), playful learning (3.60%)—serious learning (96.40) valuing pedagogy pairs. This highlights the unequal portrayal of equally important valuing pedagogies in the JHS mathematics curriculum.

Although these trends occurred, closing or widening the gaps, they did not result in total change except for implicit learning. This happened because the valuing of pedagogies which initially had higher representations increased, whereas those with less representation decreased. Implicit learning exception has resulted from the JHS curriculum’s overemphasis on implicit learning as presented earlier (e.g., Case 7).

Meanwhile, domain-life learning and quality-quantity representation exhibited no identifiable trend. Chi-square analysis of lower primary, upper primary, and JHS of the domain—life learning does not significantly decrease or increase. Also, despite a significant difference in quality-quantity, it showed no trend. These valuing pedagogies all fall under the cognitive aspect. This implies that even though cognitive valuing pedagogies increase across grade levels, the balance of each pedagogical pair does not depend on grade level to some extent.

Discussion

Grade-Level Commonalities of the Portrayal of Valuing Pedagogies

The findings from the analysis of the Ghanaian mathematics curricula indicate a consistent predominance of pedagogies that value affective and cognitive aspects over social ones. It is puzzling that all three curricula place less emphasis on social valuing pedagogies, despite explicitly highlighting six core values: commitment to achieving excellence, equity, diversity, truth and integrity, teamwork and collaboration, and respect in the national curriculum (MOE, 2018). Given the nature of specific values, such as equity, diversity, respect, and teamwork/collaboration, one would expect the curricula to prioritise social valuing pedagogies more prominently. This focus likely arises from the curriculum’s strong emphasis on attaining quantifiable performance standards, which privileges cognitive and affective objectives that are more easily measured over social competencies.

Interestingly, this pattern is not unique to Ghana. Comparative insights show that international curriculum reforms, such as those in Australia and Singapore, similarly foreground cognitive and affective orientations, emphasising reasoning, modelling, and deep learning (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2022; Leikin, 2009; Seah et al., 2017). By contrast, East Asian contexts often prioritise social valuing pedagogies, where achievement and “saving face” are deeply embedded in classroom practices (Bishop, 1988; Seah & Bishop, 2000). At the same time, global policy trends shaped by neoliberal reforms continue to privilege quantifiable outcomes over inclusion and collaboration (Darling-Hammond, 2017). Ghana’s reduced emphasis on social valuing pedagogies, therefore, reflects both a local prioritisation of measurable performance standards and broader global currents that increasingly privilege affective and cognitive objectives over social ones.

Moreover, the differential prioritisation among the 12 identified valuing pedagogies reinforces the concern that while explicit, domain, and serious learning are robustly represented, others - playful learning, EDI, saving face, and realising learning- receive comparatively little attention in all curricula. Such discrepancies may have significant implications, as literature strongly supports the educational benefits of some of these pedagogies. For instance, playful learning has been linked to increased creativity, reduced anxiety, supportive class environment, and enhanced engagement in complex subjects (Chiu et al., 2025; Boaler, 2016). Its underrepresentation could limit opportunities for holistic learning experiences that cultivate rigorous analytical skills while encouraging innovative thinking and interpersonal connectivity. One plausible implication is that teachers, working within these curricular frameworks, might lean heavily on methods that promote individual achievement and cognitive skill development while less frequently engaging in strategies that foster collaboration and peer learning (Amuah et al., 2025; Baidoo-Anu & Ennu Baidoo, 2024). This division might inadvertently influence how students perceive mathematics, not only as a subject to be mastered through individual effort but also as a discipline where collaborative inquiry and dialogue provide significant educational benefits (Patricie et al., 2023).

Differences in the Portrayal of Valuing Pedagogies Across Grade Levels

The results reveal that as students progress through the Ghanaian mathematics curricula, there is a notable shift towards more structured and cognitively demanding learning approaches. The increased emphasis on the affective and cognitive aspects, from lower primary to JHS, indicates that curriculum designers intend students to develop stronger individual analytical skills and a positive disposition towards mathematics as they move to higher grade levels. Thus, in addition to already higher representation of valuing pedagogies such as implicit, serious, and domain learning, their emphasis increases across grade levels from lower primary to JHS. This significant shift suggests a deliberate design to deepen conceptual understanding and analytical thinking. This might also be curriculum developers aligning curriculum targets with already existing Ghanaian students’ values, as studies such as Davis et al. (2019) noted that students’ valuing of achievement and cognitive strategies increases as they progress through educational levels in Ghana. The high representation of life learning pedagogies at JHS compared to the lower and upper primaries is surprising. One would expect that as we focus more on serious, intrinsic valuing pedagogies, the rippling effect will be on life learning, which would have decreased in representation. The JHS curriculum rather sought to introduce more pedagogies that demonstrate the link between mathematical concepts and practical and immediate usage. This shift also addresses concerns about the need to ensure mathematics teaching and learning does not take place outside the context of the learner (Ariana et al., 2023; Edo et al., 2023). For instance, Karakoç and Alacacı (2015) emphasise the necessity of utilising real-life examples in mathematics teaching to bridge the gap between abstract concepts and students’ lived experiences.

In contrast, the significant decline in the social valuing of pedagogies across grade levels is noteworthy. This is consistent with current patterns in which educational systems that even place a higher priority on social learning pedagogies see a reduction moving up the academic ladder. For example, recent research conducted in Hong Kong shows that while instructors prioritise exploration and enjoyment in elementary school, they shift their focus to achievement and test-taking strategies in secondary education (Zhang & Lam, 2024).The reduced emphasis on social valuing pedagogies, such as EDI, maintaining saving face, and realising learning in lower primary through to the junior high school (JHS) curricula raises concerns regarding lost opportunities to promote collaboration and peer learning. This alteration may affect students’ capacity to collaborate effectively in groups and gain advantages from shared problem-solving experiences. Research underscores that students derive substantial benefits from sustained opportunities to participate in mathematical discussions with their peers, particularly those from underrepresented groups (Espinosa, 2011; Ismail & Imawan, 2023; Voigt et al., 2022). The trend towards content mastery over holistic development reflects international patterns. These patterns have been criticised in Western contexts, arguing that overemphasising standards and cognitive rigour can marginalise students who benefit from interactive, playful, or culturally responsive pedagogy (Boaler, 2016; Darling-Hammond, 2017).

The decline of playful learning from 6.56% in lower primary to 0.89% in JHS matters for students’ mathematical identity, creativity, and equity of participation. Research shows playful math engagement promotes student motivation, enjoyment, and nurtures their identities as capable mathematical thinkers (Ellis et al., 2025; Lee et al., 2023). Diminished playful pedagogies may constrain innovative thinking and reduce opportunities for exploration essential for creative cognitive development in math. Its implication on equity, diversity, and inclusion was demonstrated in the decline of EDI from lower primary through to JHS. Playful learning offers inclusive learning spaces that can particularly benefit marginalised or diverse learners by reducing anxiety and fostering collaborative peer interactions (Espinosa, 2011; Ismail & Imawan, 2023). The decline in such pedagogies risks narrowing participation patterns and restricting equitable access to positive math learning experiences. In addition, the reduced emphasis on EDI in Ghanaian mathematics curricula across grade levels has important implications for marginalised students, who often require culturally responsive and inclusive pedagogical approaches to fully engage with mathematics learning (Atta & Bonyah, 2023). Without consistent attention to EDI, curricular opportunities for these learners may be limited, affecting equity of access and participation.

Although the trend depicts that the lower primary curriculum has a high representation of social valuing pedagogies and JHS has high affective and cognitive valuing pedagogies, it is worth noting that the upper primary curriculum distorted this pattern. The Upper Primary curriculum had a high representation of explicit learning, realising learning, quality, and saving face. This shows a little balance in the valuing pedagogy representation as compared to the other two curricula, as it does not automatically follow an increasing or decreasing trend. Although it shows the need for students to perform rigorous mathematical activities, it looks somewhat balanced with integrating activities related to mathematical conceptions with concrete materials and the use of different representations for students to have an in-depth understanding and control of the concepts. This calls for the need for future studies to investigate the balance of the valuing pedagogies across the curricula. It is also important to recognise that the findings presented here reflect the intended curriculum, as documented in policy texts. The extent to which these valuing pedagogies are enacted in classrooms remains uncertain, particularly given that Ghana’s standards-based curriculum is still in the early stages of implementation. Emerging reports suggest that while teachers have begun engaging with the revised frameworks, classroom practices may not yet fully mirror the curricular intentions due to challenges of resource availability, teacher preparation, and assessment alignment (Buabeng & Amo-Darko, 2025; Takyi et al., 2025). Attending to this implementation dimension is therefore crucial for understanding whether the privileging of cognitive and affective pedagogies over social ones translates into lived classroom practice.

Complementary Valuing Pedagogy Pairs

Across Lower Primary, Upper Primary, and JHS curricula, four pedagogies—serious learning, domain learning, achievement, and realising learning—consistently outrank their complements (playful learning, life learning, EDI, saving face). More specifically, valuing pedagogy pairs evolving across grade levels is notable. This gradual shift emphasises the importance of moving from concrete knowledge to more abstract reasoning, a transition supported by the findings of Osei and Agyei (2024), who highlight the need for developing higher-order thinking skills in students. This reflects Ghana’s policy emphasis on academic standards and core competencies (MOE, 2018) and mirrors students’ reported preference for values like achievement, fluency, and authority (Seah et al.,2017 ).

The chi-square analysis further illustrates significant differences in the representation of valuing pedagogy pairs across grade levels. The pronounced increase in serious and implicit learning over playful and explicit learning from Primary to the JHS level indicates a curriculum prioritising academic achievement as students climb the academic ladder. This agrees that mathematics becomes more detached from daily representations to actual conceptions at the higher grade levels. Meanwhile, Carr et al.’s (2023) study revealed that JHS students are more interested in fun activities than those that require hard work. Again, the heavy focus on achievement relative to EDI as we move up the grade levels suggests a shift towards a definition of mathematical success that may overlook the importance of collaborative learning and interpersonal skills, which are vital in the Ghanaian educational context. This aligns well with previous findings that Ghanaian students at higher stages (JHS) prioritise direct teaching to explore mathematics with others (Baafi, 2020; Carr et al., 2023).

Moreover, the unequal representation gap between realising learning versus saving face increased significantly, progressing through grade levels. In addition, as primary curricula prioritise quality over quantity, the JHS curricula differ by prioritising quantity over quality. These observations align with and explain to some extent earlier findings that Ghanaian students value openness less and control more as they move up the academic ladder, as previous studies have revealed (Carr et al., 2023; Davis et al., 2019). Interestingly, domain learning and life learning stability across the grade levels indicate that these cognitive components could serve as anchors for integrating more social and playful pedagogies.

Another important consideration relates to the challenges teachers may face in transitioning from the previous objective-based curriculum to the current standards-based framework. Teachers who are accustomed to traditional approaches may encounter difficulties in integrating social valuing pedagogies, balancing playful with serious learning, and assessing students’ values in ways that are both valid and practical. Research from other contexts suggests that such transitions often demand significant shifts in teacher beliefs, pedagogical repertoires, and assessment practices (Li & Huang, 2024). Without sustained professional development and clear assessment guidelines, there is a risk that social and affective dimensions of valuing pedagogies may remain under-implemented despite their presence in curriculum policy.

Conclusions and Implications

This study responds to a call for research investigating curriculum documents (Davis et al., 2019; Essien & Davis, 2024). It highlights the potential of curricula in contributing to students’ value development. This study contributes to the notion that a standards-driven curriculum usually yields pedagogical approaches that emphasise individual achievements over collective efforts. In the Ghanaian context, as demonstrated in this study, even though curriculum developers took steps to inculcate social valuing pedagogies, the curricula focus less on it in the long run. Moreover, the study also demonstrates that pedagogical approaches evolve and align with the content of mathematics to be taught. That is, as mathematical tasks become voluminous and mathematical concepts become more abstract, the pedagogical activities place a greater priority on intrinsic qualities. Thus, the curricula shift focuses to serious pedagogical engagement at the expense of fun, collaborative, and all-inclusive mathematical activities. Mastery is now considered more important as mathematical concepts become more complex.

Notwithstanding, considering previous studies revealing students’ finding attributes such as fun lessons to be of worth to them irrespective of the grade levels (Carr et al., 2023; Chiu et al., 2025), there is a need to rethink the position of how we present mathematics to students at higher grades. The main issue here is adopting cultural pedagogies approaches, activities that situate the learning within both real life and collaborative mathematics context (Davis & Seah, 2016; Nabie, 2008). By so doing, we will not lose focus on developing cognitive, affective and social abilities at the same time. This balanced approach not only prepares students for academic challenges but also equips them with the skills necessary for meaningful participation in their communities.

The limitations of this study leave a gap for further research. For instance, learner characteristics might play a significant role in the prioritisation of pedagogical activities for each grade level. Hence, further studies can look at how the prioritisation of valuing pedagogies aligns with the cognitive, affective and social demands and readiness of students at each grade level. Further studies can look at how valuing pedagogies evolve within each grade level to enrich the findings of this study. This will also provide a deeper understanding of how valuing pedagogies are defined for learners of similar age groups, unlike the current study, which looked at different age groups.

Lastly, while this study has provided insights into the intended curriculum, it does not capture how the identified valuing pedagogies are enacted in classrooms. Implementation of Ghana’s standards-based mathematics curriculum remains an important area for further investigation, as classroom practices may amplify or diverge from the curricular intentions. Future research that attends to this enactment will provide a more comprehensive understanding of how valuing pedagogies shape students’ experiences and outcomes.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix 1.

Code Scheme.

Dimension	Value/valuing pedagogy	Associated codes	Key themes/examples
Affective	Playful learning	Activities designed to make learning fun or engaging, Use of humour or storytelling, Encouragement of exploration or creativity, Interactive tools	Mathematical games, puzzles, open-ended tasks, humorous narratives, Acting mathematical stories
	Serious learning	Activities with defined rigorous learning outcomes, Focus on mastery of principles, Use of structured assessments, Step-by-step problem-solving instructions	Problem-solving tasks, quizzes, clear learning objectives
	Explicit learning	Tasks designed to motivate students through rewards, Hands-on, Activities emphasising immediate outcomes, Direct instruction	Clear lesson objectives, points or certificates, hands-on activities, observable results
	Implicit learning	Activities fostering reflection, Intrinsic motivation, focus on the unfolding of concepts, Relating math to personal interests	Open-ended tasks, personal connections to math, discovery-based learning
Cognitive	Quantity learning	Tasks emphasising repetition or practice, Curriculum promoting breadth of topics, Emphasis on speed and task completion, Reinforcement through similar problems	Practice exercises, time-bound tasks, covering many concepts
	Quality learning	Use of diverse representations, encouraging depth in understanding, focus on problem-solving accuracy, Tasks requiring multiple solution strategies	Diagrams, real-life examples, tasks that encourage critical thinking; Multiple representations of mathematical ideas. Use of different models/manipulatives
	Life learning	Real-life applications of concepts, Emphasis on interdisciplinary connections, Tasks designed to solve practical problems, Problem-solving in real-world contexts	Budgeting tasks, relating mathematical concept with the environment, interdisciplinary lessons, practical data collection and interpretation
	Domain learning	Focus on abstract concepts, Curriculum focusing on advanced problem-solving, Exploration of theoretical scenarios, Tasks requiring high-level conceptual understanding	Theorems, proofs, algebraic manipulation, theoretical scenarios
Social	Saving face	Group tasks designed to minimize embarrassment, Avoidance of singling out individuals, Sensitivity to student emotions, Activities fostering a supportive environment	Group mathematical tasks, anonymous contributions, non-competitive tasks
	Realising learning	Promoting collaboration and discussion, Tasks encouraging mutual support, Peer-to-peer feedback, Group problem-solving exercises	Peer learning, group discussions, collaborative reviews
	Achievement	Recognition of individual/group achievements, Encouragement of competition, Emphasis on personal goal setting, Tasks with measurable outcomes	Awards, challenges, progress tracking
	Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI)	Differentiated instruction, Collaboration between high and low performers, Inclusion of culturally relevant contexts, Support for diverse learners	Peer-assisted learning, culturally relevant mathematics examples, differentiated mathematical tasks

ORCID iDs

Addison Ofori Nyarko

Mei-Shiu Chiu

Consent to Participate

This study does not involve any human participants, so informed consent is not necessary.

Author Contributions

Addison Ofori Nyarko contributed to the conceptualisation of the study, wrote the original draft, developed the methodology, conducted the investigation, performed formal analysis, and managed data curation.

Mei-Shiu Chui contributed to drafting the original version, developing the study’s framework and methodology, reviewing and editing the manuscript, and providing supervision throughout the research process.

Both authors have read and approved the final manuscript, and they agree with the order of authorship.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets collected during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.*

References

Amuah

Agormedah

E. K.

Akyeampong

Ampiah

J. G.

(2025). Students’ perceptions of their mathematics classroom learning environment in a newly implemented standard-based curriculum during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cluster analysis. Cogent Education, 12(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2025.2473248

Ariana

Sanusi

Ichwanudin

(2023). Institutional ownership effect on company values with CSR and DER as an intervening variable. Journal of Applied Business, Taxation and Economics Research, 3(1), 54–69.

Atta

S. A.

Bonyah

(2023). Teaching mathematics for social justice: The challenges and the prospects in the Ghanaian senior high schools. Journal of Mathematics and Science Teacher, 3(1), em033. https://doi.org/10.29333/mathsciteacher/13082

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2022). The Australian curriculum (Version 9.0). https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au

Baafi

R. K. A.

(2020). Teacher-student relationship and student learning outcomes in senior public secondary schools in Ghana. European Journal of Education Studies, 6(12), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3676476

Baidoo-Anu

Ennu Baidoo

(2024). Performance-based accountability: Exploring Ghanaian teachers perception of the influence of large-scale testing on teaching and learning. Education Inquiry, 15(3), 333–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2022.2110673

Barwell

Abtahi

Hauge

K. H.

(2024). Collectivist and individualist values in mathematics education. In Dede

Marschall

Clarkson

(Eds.), Values and valuing in mathematics education: Moving forward into practice (pp. 57–71). Springer Nature.

Bishop

A. J.

(1988). Mathematical enculturation: A cultural perspective on mathematics education. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Bishop

A. J.

(1996). How should mathematics teaching in modern societies relate to cultural values? Some preliminary questions. In Nguyen

D. T.

Pham

T. L.

Comiti

Green

D. R.

Southwell

Izard

(Eds.). In: Proceedings of the 7th South East Asian Conference on Mathematics Education (SEACME 7), Hanoi University of Technology in Hanoi, Vietnam (pp. 19–24). Vietnamese Mathematical Society.

10.

Boaler

(2016). Designing mathematics classes to promote equity and engagement. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 41, 172–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2015.01.002

11.

Buabeng

Amo-Darko

(2025). Curriculum reforms without foundation: The effects of inadequate preparation in curriculum reforms on Ghanaian teachers and the education system. Curriculum Perspectives, 45, 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-025-00309-7

12.

Carr

M. E.

(2019). Student and/or teacher valuing in mathematics classrooms: where are we now, and where should we go? In Clarkson

Seah

W. T.

Pang

(Eds.), Values and valuing in mathematics education: Scanning and scoping the territory (pp. 25–52). Springer.

13.

Carr

M. E.

Davis

E. K.

Seah

W. T.

(2023). An exploration of Ghanaian students’ valuing in mathematics: How does it evolve across school levels? Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 19(10), https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13542

14.

Chan

Y. C.

Wong

N. Y.

(2019). Methodological issues in the investigation of values in mathematics. In Clarkson

Seah

W. T.

Pang

(Eds.), Values and valuing in mathematics education: Scanning and scoping the territory (pp. 197–208). Springer.

15.

Chiu

M. S.

Seah

W. T.

(2024). Values and valuing pedagogies in affect-focused mathematics teaching. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 10, 101050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101050

16.

Chiu

M. S.

Seah

W. T.

Chen

H. M.

Wan

I. P.

(2025). Valuing pedagogy in implementing an affect-focused mathematics teaching with technology support: Valuing playful teaching vs. game technology. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 14511–14538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13363-5

17.

Darling-Hammond

(2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1315399

18.

Davis

E. K.

Seah

W. T.

(2016). Socio-cultural factors: A missing variable in mathematics pedagogy in Ghana: Socio-cultural factors: A missing variable in mathematics pedagogy in Ghana. Ghana Journal of Education: Issues and Practice (GJE), 2, 40–58. https://doi.org/10.47963/gje.v2i.473

19.

Davis

E. K.

Carr

M. E.

Ampadu

(2019). Valuing in mathematics learning amongst Ghanaian students: What does it look like across grade levels? In Clarkson

Seah

W. T.

Pang

(Eds.), Values and valuing in mathematics education: Scanning and scoping the territory (pp. 89–102). Springer.

20.

Davis

E. K.

Kalogeropoulos

Russo

J. A.

(2024). Comparative study of primary school students’ values in mathematics learning in Ghana and Australia. In Dede

Marschall

Clarkson

(Eds.), Values and valuing in mathematics education: Moving forward into practice (pp. 169–190). Springer Nature.

21.

Davis

E. K.

Ntow

F. D.

Beccles

(2022). Factors influencing Ghanaian public junior high school students’ performance in English language, mathematics and science and its implications on the national policy on progression. Sage Open, 12(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221123912

22.

Dede

(2006). Values in Turkish middle school mathematics textbooks. Quality & Quantity, 40(3), 331–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-005-6133-8

23.

Dede

Akçakın

Kaya

(2021). Mathematical, mathematics educational, and educational values in mathematical modeling tasks. ECNU Review of Education, 4(2), 241–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531120928089

24.

Edo

Boateng

F. O.

Maanu

Gyimah

(2023). Effect of experiential learning approach on junior high school pupils’ performance in finding area of plane figures. African Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics and Sciences, 19(2), 293–306. https://doi.org/10.4314/ajesms.v19i2.10

25.

Ellis

A. B.

Horne

Bloodworth

Ely

(2025). From mathematical play to playful math. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 78, 101235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2024.101235

26.

Espinosa

(2011). Pipelines and pathways: Women of color in undergraduate STEM majors and the college experiences that contribute to persistence. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 209–241. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.2.92315ww157656k3u

27.

Essien

Davis

E. K.

(2024). Exploring values implicit in Ghanaian senior high school mathematics textbooks. Asian Journal for Mathematics Education, 3(1), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/27527263241232712

28.

Fisher

Hirsh-Pasek

Golinkoff

R. M.

(2012). Fostering mathematical thinking through playful learning. In Suggate

Reese

(Eds.), Contemporary debates in childhood education and development (pp. 81–91). Routledge.

29.

Han

Hyland

(2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.002

30.

Hill

J. L.

Kern

M. L.

Seah

W. T.

van Driel

(2022). Developing a model of “mathematical wellbeing” through a thematic analysis of the literature. In Fernández

Llinares

Gutiérrez

Planas

(Eds.),. In: Proceedings of the 45th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain (pp. 387–394). PME. https://www.igpme.org/publications/current-proceedings/

31.

Ismail

Imawan

O. R.

(2023). Five priority character values: Content analysis in the independent curriculum mathematics textbook in Indonesia. International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematics Education, 1(2), 83–103. https://doi.org/10.56855/ijmme.v1i02.330

32.

Jackson

(2011). Approaching participation in school-based mathematics as a cross-setting phenomenon. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(1), 111–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.528319

33.

Karakoç

Alacacı

(2015). Real world connections in high school mathematics curriculum and teaching. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 6(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.16949/turcomat.76099

34.

Kilpatrick

Swafford

Findell

(Eds.) (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. National Academy Press.

35.

Lee

Joswick

Pole

(2023). Classroom play and activities to support computational thinking development in early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal, 51, 457–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-022-01319-0

36.

Leikin

(2009). Exploring mathematical creativity using multiple solution tasks. In Leikin

Berman

Koichu

(Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students (pp. 129–145). Sense Publishers.

37.

Huang

J. L.

(2024). Exploring preservice teachers’ belief changes during early childhood education teaching practicum in China: A case study. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 44(4), 825–839. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2023.2167806

38.

Ministry of Education. (2018). National pre-tertiary education curriculum framework for developing subject curricula. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NaCCA).

39.

Ministry of Education. (2019a). Mathematics curriculum for primary schools (basic 1–3). National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NaCCA).

40.

Ministry of Education. (2019b). Mathematics curriculum for primary schools (basic 4–6). National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NaCCA).

41.

Ministry of Education. (2020). Mathematics common core programme (CCP) curriculum for JHS1 (b7)–JHS3 (b9). National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NaCCA).

42.

Ministry of Education. (2023a). 2022 P4 national standardised test report findings. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NaCCA).

43.

Ministry of Education. (2023b). 2022 P2 NST report. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NaCCA).

44.

Ministry of Education and Research. (2017). Core curriculum—values and principles for primary and secondary education. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/53d21ea2bc3a4202b86b83cfe82da93e/core-curriculum.pdf

45.

Mullis

I. V. S.

Martin

M. O.

Foy

Kelly

D. L.

Fishbein

(2020). TIMSS 2019 International results in mathematics and science. Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/international-results/

46.

Nabie

M. J.

(2008). Cultural games in Ghana: Exploring mathematics pedagogy with primary school teachers [Doctoral thesis]. University of Alberta. https://doi.org/10.7939/r3-v45d-x515

47.

Neuman

W. L.

(Ed.). (2007). Basics of social research qualitative and quantitative approaches (2nd ed.). Pearson Education Inc.

48.

Osei

Agyei

D. D.

(2024). Analyses of algebra knowledge and difficulties among Ghanaian junior high school learners: Insights from standard-based mathematics curriculum implementation. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 10, 101019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101019

49.

Patricie

Faustin

Mukamazimpaka

M. C.

(2023). Influence of teaching strategies on students’ competences in mathematics in public secondary schools in Rwanda. Journal of Education, 6(5), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.53819/81018102t5270

50.

Rice

(2009). Playful learning. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 4(2), 94–108. https://doi.org/10.11120/jebe.2009.04020094

51.

Seah

W. T.

(2019). Values in mathematics education: Its conative nature, and how it can be developed. Research in Mathematics Education, 22(2), 99–121. https://doi.org/10.7468/jksmed.2019.22.2.99

52.

Seah

W. T.

Bishop

A. J.

(2000). Values in mathematics textbooks: A view through two Australasian regions. Paper presented at the 81st Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

53.

Seah

W. T.

Davis

E. K.

Carr

M. E.

(2017). School mathematics education through the eyes of students in Ghana: Extrinsic and intrinsic valuing. In: CERME 10, February 2017, Dublin. Dublin City University. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01937325

54.

Takyi

Yalley

C. E.

Owusu

Fynn

P. A.

(2025). Challenges towards the implementation of the standards-based curriculum in Ghana: A systematic review. International Journal of Instruction, 18(3), 577–594. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2025.18330a

55.

Tang

Seah

W. T.

Zhang

(2021). The mathematics learning attributes valued by students in Eastern China. ECNU Review of Education, 4(2), 261–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531120930240

56.

Voigt

Hagman

Street

Guglielmo

Martinez

Tremaine

(2022). A quantitative critical analysis of instructional practices and math affect. In Karunakaran

S. S.

Higgins

(Eds.). In: Proceedings of the 24th Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, Boston, Massachusetts (pp. 666–674).

57.

Webb

N. M.

Franke

M. L.

Ing

Wong

Fernandez

C. H.

Shin

Turrou

A. C.

(2014). Engaging with others’ mathematical ideas: Interrelationships among student participation, teachers’ instructional practices, and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 63, 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.02.001

58.

Wouters

van Oostendorp

Ter Vrugte

Vander Cruysse

de Jong

Elen

(2017). The effect of surprising events in a serious game on learning mathematics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(3), 860–877. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12458

59.

Zhang

Lam

C. Y.

(2024). Contrasting mathematics educational values: An in-depth case study of primary and secondary teachers in Hong Kong. Asian Journal for Mathematics Education, 3(2), 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/27527263241258263 Original work published 2024.

Exploring Valuing Pedagogies Across Grade Levels: Insights From Ghana’s Standards-Based Mathematics Curricula

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical Basis: Valuing Pedagogies in Mathematics Education

Values and Valuing Across Grade Levels

Ghanaian Mathematics Curricula and Values

Research Questions

Research Methods

Research Design

Curricula Selection

Data Collection

Data Analysis

Validity and Reliability

Results

Commonalities in Valuing Pedagogies Across Ghanaian Mathematics Curricula

Differences in Valuing Pedagogy Across Ghanaian Mathematics Curricula

Portrayal of Complementary Valuing Pedagogy Pairs Across Grade Levels

Commonalities Across Grade Levels

Differences Across Grade Levels

Discussion

Grade-Level Commonalities of the Portrayal of Valuing Pedagogies

Differences in the Portrayal of Valuing Pedagogies Across Grade Levels

Complementary Valuing Pedagogy Pairs

Conclusions and Implications

Footnotes

Appendix

ORCID iDs

Consent to Participate

Author Contributions

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

References