Abstract
The explicit and implicit teaching of values in mathematics education has been explored across many education systems. Currently, researchers and significant education stakeholders argue for the explicit teaching of values in mathematics education. Following this global trend, the current Ghanaian pre-tertiary mathematics curricula emphasize the explicit development of values, unlike previous ones. Therefore, this paper investigates how values are portrayed in mathematics curricula and the valuing pedagogies that account for the portrayal of the identified values. The study utilized qualitative content analysis to identify values and valuing pedagogies in the lower primary, upper primary, and junior high school (JHS) curricula. The analysis revealed varying degrees of portrayal of six explicit values—commitment to achieving excellence, diversity, equity, teamwork/collaboration, truth and integrity, and respect—and three inherent values—problem-solving, innovation, and relevance. Additionally, the curricula strongly prioritize the affective aspect (51.6%) of valuing pedagogies, the cognitive aspect (36.7%), and the social aspect accounting for 11.7% of total valuing references. The study recommends that while the Ghanaian lower primary, upper primary, and JHS mathematics curricula have made strides in integrating key values, there is a need for more attention to the underrepresented values.
Introduction
Seah et al. (2016) argue that if values are to be central to mathematics teaching and learning, attention must be paid to the intended, implemented, and attained curriculum. Utilizing Robitaille and Garden's (1989) framework, Seah and colleagues emphasize how values are conceptualized, taught, and internalized. They critique the traditional focus of mathematics curricula on procedural skills, asserting that this emphasis often overlooks essential aspects of learning, such as values. To address this, they propose a values-centered curriculum, which necessitates coherence across the three curriculum levels.
In line with this, the preliminary stages of research into values in mathematics education have seen studies examining the curriculum (Clarkson & Bishop, 2000; Movshovitz-Hadar & Edri, 2013), curriculum materials (Seah & Bishop, 2000), and students’ values (Seah & Peng, 2012). However, as the research focus shifts towards addressing students’ value deficiencies (Carr, 2019) and students’ mathematical well-being (Hill et al., 2022), the interest in researching intended values becomes somewhat obsolete. Meanwhile, the curriculum is the primary driver of the teaching and learning process and, by extension, a significant contributor to students’ value development. More importantly, many curricula around the world have undergone significant revisions over the decades, and it is worth understanding the kind of values inherent in these new curricula being introduced.
More specifically, values are a major contributor to students’ mathematics performance (Movshovitz-Hadar & Edri, 2013). Hence, it is worth noting the kind of values intended for students in low-achieving countries in international exams, such as the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Ghana, a low-performing country in TIMSS (Mullis et al., 2012), has introduced a new curriculum. It would be appropriate to research the values underlying this curriculum to inform future studies on values and valuing in mathematics education within its cultural context. Moreover, numerous studies have compared the values of Ghanaian students with those of students from high-performing countries (Davis et al., 2021; Seah et al., 2017). Hence, it is essential to examine the curricula to gain a clear understanding of research reports over the years and future implications.
Given this context, there is a pressing need to explore the values and pedagogical approaches that are explicitly or implicitly embedded in the Ghanaian mathematics curriculum. To guide this inquiry, the study adapts the Values and valuing pedagogies framework developed by Chiu and Seah (2024), integrating Bishop's (1996) general educational values as the foundation. The framework visually represents how core values—such as respect, integrity, and collaboration—are portrayed through specific valuing pedagogies categorized as cognitive, affective, and social. By combining both frameworks, this study examines not only which values are prioritized in the Ghanaian curriculum but also how they are pedagogically supported and communicated.
Research questions
The purpose of this study is to identify values and valuing pedagogies in the Ghanaian mathematics curriculum. In particular, this study aims mainly to answer the following research questions:
What are the general educational values in the Ghanaian mathematics curriculum? What are the valuing pedagogies inherent in the Ghanaian mathematics curriculum? How do valuing pedagogies interact with general educational values in the Ghanaian mathematics curriculum?
Literature review
Theoretical framework
The conduct of this preliminary study has been informed mainly by Chiu and Seah's (2024) values and valuing pedagogies framework and Bishop's (1996) general educational values. The use of this theoretical framework is justified based on the current Ghanaian curriculum's focus on values stated in the introduction section: Inspired by the values which are important to the Ghanaian society, the CCP [Common Core Programme] provides an education of the heart, mind and hands in relation to the learner's lifetime values, wellbeing, physical development, metacognition and problem-solving abilities. (Ministry of Education [MOE], 2020, p viii)
Values and valuing pedagogies in mathematics education.
According to Bishop (1996), general educational values are not necessarily mathematical. They are typically incorporated into the curriculum of all school subjects. More specifically, the explicitly stated values (respect, diversity, equity, commitment to achieving excellence, teamwork/collaboration, and truth and integrity) in the Ghanaian mathematics curricula are not mathematics-specific; instead, these values are defined as being espoused by all school subjects (MOE, 2018). These values are well defined in all curricula documents.
As the study progressed, additional categories of values emerged inductively from the data that were not fully represented. These include context-specific values such as problem-solving, innovation, and relevance that were repeatedly outlined in the curricula as meaningful to their mathematics learning experiences. While the six explicitly defined values provided a solid starting point, these emergent categories offered nuanced insights into the lived realities of learners, particularly in collaborative and emotionally engaging classroom settings. This is in line with Chiu and Seah's (2024) assertion that valuing pedagogies can be implicit in curriculum materials. To reflect these findings, the theoretical framework was
Chiu and Seah (2024) developed values and valuing pedagogies in a mathematics education framework based on their analysis of the activities of mathematics teachers and students in affect-focused lessons. In their study, a bottom-up qualitative approach was used to develop the framework. Data were collected from 42 Mathematics Grounding Activity videos recorded in elementary and junior high classroom, alongside interviews with teachers and students which were developed and shared on YouTube by the Shi-DA Institute of Mathematics Education (SDiME).
Each video was transcribed verbatim and then coded using open coding, constant comparison, and theme-finding techniques, thereby grounding the framework in empirical evidence. The aspects emerged from the data; however, guided by Bishop et al.'s (2006) categorization of values, the resulting framework classified valuing pedagogies into three interrelated dimensions: affective, cognitive, and social aspects. The intersections of the circles in the framework reveal that valuing pedagogies in mathematics education are inherently interconnected. For example, classroom activities that are designed to be playful (affective) often lead to deeper mathematical understanding (cognitive) and promote peer interaction (social).
In the model depicted in Figure 1, six value clusters are structured into two pairs, each related to one of the three dimensions: cognitive, affective, and social aspects. The sub-themes emerged inductively from the data analysis process and the discussion of results, rather than being predetermined. The framework was grounded in empirical data, including classroom observation videos, interviews with teachers, and student interactions. Through constant comparison and theme refinement, these value pairs were identified as complementary aspects of pedagogical valuing in an affect-focused mathematics education using Bishop et al.'s (2006) values framework.
Playful versus serious learning: This aspect describes the value of pedagogical activities that are engaging and fun in nature, yet lead to a deep understanding of the mathematical concepts embedded within them. Playful learning refers to pedagogical activities that are intentionally designed to evoke positive emotions, such as joy, curiosity, and interest, in the process of engaging with mathematics (Fredrickson, 2001; Resnick, 2017). By contrast, serious learning refers to the sustained, cognitively demanding processes through which students consolidate and extend mathematical understanding (Immordino-Yang & Damasio, 2007). These two dimensions are not contradictory but complementary. Thus, students who experience playful learning are more likely to develop positive attitudes toward mathematics, which in turn supports their persistence in serious learning tasks. This view is consistent with the enactivist perspective, where learning emerges through active engagement with meaningful experiences (Yang et al., 2022). It is expected that students performing the activity will value its playful nature as well as gain an understanding. As students value the fun aspect, this heightened their interest and increased their engagement, leading to serious learning. Such an approach (e.g., using games, etc.) emphasizes active engagement and experiential learning as key components for understanding mathematics. Making mathematics teaching full of playful activities is instrumental to addressing the affective issues in serious mathematics learning (Chiu et al., 2025).
Explicit versus implicit learning: This pair describes valuing learning based on either an external feature or internal reflection. Explicit learning in mathematics refers to valuing activities because of their observable features, such as enjoyment, external motivation, or tangible rewards (Deci & Ryan, 1985). For example, a student may value a mathematical activity because it is engaging. Implicit learning, by contrast, refers to valuing pedagogical experiences based on being more impressed by how the mathematical concept unfolds and being fascinated by the understanding of it. This draws on experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984), which acknowledges both concrete engagement and abstract reflection as pathways to internalizing value. Both explicit and implicit learning are associated with the affective dimension of valuing, since each highlights how emotions and attitudes are connected to the ways students experience mathematics.
Cognitive aspect
Quantity versus quality: Quantity involves valuing new ideas and acquiring knowledge. It involves exploring and solving as many problems as one can. Complementary to this is the value of Quality learning, which illustrates the use of different representations to illustrate an idea or problem, thus stressing understanding. This value pair is similar to the distinction between control and progress (see Bishop, 1996).
Life versus domain learning refers to emphasizing the use of mathematical knowledge (Life) as well as emphasizing abstract mathematical knowledge or theories (Domain). Life learning refers to valuing mathematical knowledge because of its direct application to real-world contexts, everyday decision-making, and personal development. Domain learning, by contrast, refers to valuing mathematics for its abstract, theoretical, and disciplinary knowledge. This aligns with what Bishop (1996) described as objectism and rationalism. Ryan and Deci (2020) argue that teachers should balance their pedagogical approach by emphasizing life learning and domain learning.
Social aspect
Saving face versus realizing learning: This social aspect deals with the values which are portrayed when students engage in social interaction in the classroom. Saving face involves students being very concerned about their social status, that is, whether the pedagogical activity arouses their emotions positively or negatively. On the other hand, peer interaction offers students an opportunity to learn. That is, social interaction motivates active student participation, which in turn leads to realizing learning. This aligns with Vygotsky's (1978) assertion that learning is a natural phenomenon that typically occurs when people engage in social activities.
Achievement versus equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI): Social interaction also results in students valuing both achievement and EDI, as high-performing students provide the necessary assistance to colleagues who are low-performing. Chiu and Seah (2024) argue that if care is not taken in performing pedagogical activities and EDI is highly valued, it may have a negative impact on high-achievers, as they intend to assist low-achievers. Thus, it would be appropriate to portray both achievement and EDI concurrently.
In conclusion, by situating valuing pedagogies within the broader rectangle of general educational values, the framework highlights that effective values education must both be grounded in widely recognized societal values (general educational values) and enacted through intentional pedagogical practices.
The Ghanaian mathematics curricula
In this study, “mathematics curricula” refers solely to the intended curricula articulated in official documents. For instance, the Ghanaian junior high school (JHS) mathematics curriculum refers to the official document that defines a set of academic standards detailing what JHS students should know and understand in JHS.
The current pre-tertiary Ghanaian mathematics curricula, introduced by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NaCCA), represent a significant shift toward a standards-based education model (MOE, 2019a, 2019b, 2020). The mathematics curricula for pre-tertiary education are divided into four main grade groups: lower primary (grades 1–3), upper primary (grades 4–6), JHS (grades 7–9), and senior high school (SHS) (grades 10–12). The lower primary, upper primary, and JHS mathematics curriculum is structured to develop foundational mathematical skills progressively. These target skills, referred to as standards, are organized under four main strands, namely: number, algebra, geometry and measurement, and data.
These strands are further divided into sub-strands, which cover the topics necessary under each strand. For example, the “Number” strand in the JHS mathematics curriculum is split into four main sub-strands: Number and Numeration Systems, Number Operations, Fractions, Decimals, and Percentages, and Ratios and Proportions. Additionally, each sub-strand is addressed in the curriculum through a series of content standards. Content standards represent a specific level of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that learners are expected to achieve by a certain educational stage (MOE, 2020). For instance, one JHS 1 (Grade 7) content standard for the sub-strand Number and Numeration Systems in the Strand-Number is “B7.1.1.1 Demonstrate understanding and the use of place value for expressing quantities recorded as base-ten numerals, as well as rounding these to given decimal places and significant figures” (MOE, 2020, p. 2). The specific outcomes learners demonstrate to show they have met a standard are indicated by learning indicators. Indicators are achieved through the performance of pedagogical activities known as exemplars.
Despite efforts by curriculum developers to define clear outcomes desired for each strand, studies have shown difficulties, underperformance of individual strands, and uneven performance across strands (Davis et al., 2022; Osei & Agyei, 2024). This raises questions about the underlying factors that contribute to such results. One possible explanation lies in the role of students’ values, which shape how they engage with mathematical activities and interpret their learning experiences. Values have been identified as a major contributor to students’ mathematical wellbeing (Hill et al., 2022) and a prerequisite for their overall achievement. Thus, it is worthwhile to determine the set values underlying each of these strands and how they are presented in official curriculum documents.
Moreover, the curriculum is competency-based, emphasizing the development of core competencies that will enable students to apply knowledge in real-world contexts. These competencies include critical thinking and problem-solving, personal development and leadership, creativity and innovation, communication and collaboration, cultural identity and global citizenship, and digital literacy (MOE, 2019a, 2019b, 2020). Central to the curriculum are values such as respect, teamwork and collaboration, truth and integrity, diversity, equity, and commitment to achieving excellence.
Measuring values in mathematics education
Seah et al. (2022) defined values as outward manifestations of the things that are significant to a culture, community, organization, or person. Values in curriculum material refer to those acquired through engaging in pedagogical practices and mathematical activities outlined in the curriculum. Thus, values refer to what the curriculum implicitly or explicitly promotes as important in mathematics—for example, whether accuracy, reasoning, real-world relevance, collaboration, or efficiency is emphasized (Seah & Bishop, 2000).
The choice of methodologies for assessing values has evolved over the years (Chang, 2001; Dede, 2014; Dede et al., 2021; Movshovitz-Hadar & Edri, 2013; Seah et al., 2017; Seah & Wong, 2012). The first decade of research into values saw the majority of studies use qualitative research methods (Seah, 2008). These methodologies, among others, include case studies and ethnographic approaches to uncover the underlying value of a particular action. As research progressed and the need to identify the values of large numbers of students and teachers emerged, researchers’ attention shifted towards more quantitative approaches (Carr et al., 2023; Davis & Abass, 2023; Davis et al., 2021). Popular among these studies is the What I Find Important (WIFI) study, which utilized a questionnaire to evaluate the values of approximately 18,000 students across 19 economies (Seah, 2019).
Research that identifies values in mathematics education in curriculum materials takes a different turn. Studies that sought to identify values embedded in curriculum materials utilized qualitative research methods (Dede, 2006a, 2006b; Essien & Davis, 2024; Seah & Bishop, 2000). More specifically, the studies employed content analysis to explore values in mathematics textbooks and curricula, and thematic analysis to examine the values of pedagogical activities (Chiu & Seah, 2024; Corey & Ninomiya, 2019).
These studies draw from existing frameworks of values and valuing in mathematics education. Prominent among these frameworks is Bishop's (1996) values in mathematics education framework, which theorizes three categories of values: general educational, mathematics educational, and mathematical values. Numerous studies have used this framework to analyze text materials and identify the values embedded in them (Dede, 2006a; Essien & Davis, 2024; Seah & Bishop, 2000). However, there is a paucity of research which sought to identify the kinds of general educational values in the mathematics discipline (Seah, 2019). Moreover, the search for a framework to capture how specific pedagogical practices support the development of values led Chiu and Seah (2024) to identify three key categories of valuing pedagogies in mathematics education: cognitive, affective, and social.
Method
Research design
The study used qualitative content analysis to investigate values in mathematics curricula. Content analysis is a research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from texts (or other meaningful matter) to the contexts of their use. This design was adopted to enable the analysis of text within the context in which they are used (Neuman, 2007).
Data source and sample
The Ghanaian lower primary, upper primary, and JHS mathematics curricula at the time of research were purposely sampled. These curricula were sampled based on the fact that they were the available curricula in use by all public primary and JHS levels, which were developed using similar frameworks (e.g., standards-based). In contrast, the SHS curriculum has supposedly been designed using the same frameworks (e.g., standards-based) as in lower primary and upper primary. However, it was under review and scheduled for use in the next academic year (2024/2025) and was not yet available to be included in the study. The lower primary, upper primary, and JHS curricula were obtained from the official website of NaCCA, which provides public access to all national curriculum documents for basic education in Ghana.
Research instruments
A codebook (see Appendix A) was developed as a systematic tool for identifying and categorizing text elements that signal values and valuing pedagogies in mathematics education. Its design involved two researchers working collaboratively from the outset, and followed a structured, multi-phase process to ensure both contextual relevance and methodological rigor.
In the first phase, the author drafted a provisional coding framework by synthesizing values and valuing pedagogies reported in earlier research (Chiu & Seah, 2024) with explicit values articulated in Ghana's Ministry of Education curriculum documents (MOE, 2019a, 2019b, 2020). This initial framework served as a starting point but was deliberately kept flexible to accommodate emergent insights from the data.
In the second phase, a pilot analysis was conducted on a purposive 10% sample of the curriculum texts. The author and an expert in values and valuing pedagoies research independently applied open coding to this sample, allowing for the identification of additional indicators not captured in either prior literature or curriculum policy. This exploratory stage led to the recognition of context-specific values such as relevance, innovation, and problem-solving, which are particularly salient in the Ghanaian context (Davis et al., 2019; see also MOE, 2018).
Following independent coding, both researchers engaged in cyclical comparison sessions, systematically reviewing code applications node by node. Discrepancies, such as misapplied codes, overlapping categories, or omissions, were collaboratively examined and resolved. Where disagreements arose, definitions and operational boundaries were refined until consensus was achieved. These cycles of comparison, discussion, and revision were repeated iteratively, first on the pilot dataset and subsequently on an expanded sample, until the codebook demonstrated stable applicability across the full corpus of curriculum documents.
The final version of the codebook (Appendix A) presents each category with a precise definition and illustrative examples.
Data collection and analysis
The analysis covered various types of text, including explanatory content, worked examples, practice questions, and supplementary text (such as introductions, meta-expositions, and summaries). Latent coding was employed to interpret the often implicit values and valuing pedagogies in the curriculum content. Neuman (2007) describes latent coding as the process of identifying the fundamental implicit meaning in a text.
The latent coding and organization of the qualitative data were facilitated by NVivo software (version 15) during both the pilot test and the main study. The three curricula documents were retrieved from NACCA's website and imported into NVivo, after which initial codes were created. For the general education values, the unit of analysis was the individual curriculum statements across all the sections. These include the distinct curriculum sentences. Frequency counts were based on the number of times a specific value was expressed in a sentence. However, in the indicators and exemplars section, the general values were recognized and tallied as they appeared in the example illustrations (Essien & Davis, 2024). This method enabled the detailed measurement of the emphasis given to each value across the curriculum. For valuing pedagogies, the unit of analysis was the pedagogical statement, defined as an instructional statement involving a specific mathematical activity, worked example, or practice question. A pedagogical statement begins when a new example, problem set, activity type, or instructional directive starts. Each pedagogical statement was examined for evidence valuing pedagogy, as outlined in Chiu and Seah's (2024) framework. To examine co-occurrences between values and valuing pedagogies, NVivo's coding query functions were used to identify instances where both codes overlapped within the same pedagogical statement. This analysis helped determine how frequently particular values were embedded in instructional practices, offering insight into the curriculum's alignment with the valuing of pedagogical principles.
Moreover, the whole document was coded for each value and valuing pedagogy one after the other. This is to ensure that all underlying values and counts are identified, since a pedagogical activity or mathematical task can demonstrate two or more values and valuing pedagogies. To capture other emerging codes (values), any new coding situations that arose after the coding process began were documented. These codes, such as relevance, innovation, and problem-solving, were named with reference to literature that considers the Ghanaian cultural context (Davis et al., 2019; Davis et al., 2021; Seah et al., 2017). For instance, text such as “Learners need to acquire these competencies in mathematics for post-secondary education, workplace training or both” was coded as relevance with reference to literature related to the Ghanaian cultural context (see Davis et al., 2019). As a result, a detailed codebook (see Appendix A) was developed to guide the identification and categorization of both general educational values and valuing pedagogies. To adhere to the journal's word limit, the key extracts indicating values and valuing pedagogies have been summarized and documented in the results section.
The results were represented in the form of values against the number of references and excerpts (cases). LP1-3, UP4-6, and JHS 7-9 were the codes assigned to the cases from Lower Primary, Upper Primary, and JHS, respectively. The codes’ numbers correspond to the grade level from which the case was taken.
Validity and reliability
The method of qualitative content analysis has been used in several research studies to examine educational materials and evaluate the value messages hidden within them (Dede, 2006a, 2006b; Essien & Davis, 2024; Seah, 2000). Also, the latent coding method employed is reported to have high validity (Neuman, 2007). Notwithstanding, the validity was further evaluated by the experts in valuing and values in mathematics education research. Additionally, the instrument's validity was supported by findings from prior empirical studies, reinforcing its appropriateness for measuring the intended constructs. Concerns about reliability arise because the same statement may have multiple meanings (values) in latent coding. Intercoder reliability was established through a negotiated agreement process (Campbell et al., 2013). Two additional coders independently coded a subset of the data to establish intercoder reliability. Intercoder agreement was assessed using NVivo's Coding Comparison tool, which generates a percentage agreement statistic based on the correspondence of coding decisions across coders. The analysis yielded percentage agreement values ranging from 85% to 96% across the value codes, indicating a high level of consistency in the application of the coding framework. Agreement levels above 80% are widely regarded as acceptable evidence of reliability in qualitative coding (Neuman, 2007). Correspondingly, Cohen's κ values ranged from 0.75 to 0.89 (M = 0.81). Following this procedure, minor discrepancies were examined and resolved through a structured discussion process to ensure clarity and shared understanding of code definitions. This process helped to refine the coding scheme and confirm the stability of interpretations across coders.
Results
The results section is organized into three primary subsections: firstly, the findings from the analysis of general educational values are presented; secondly, the pedagogies specific to valuing within the mathematics curriculum are outlined; and finally, an examination of the interaction between the general educational values and the valuing pedagogies is provided.
General education values
Specific general education values portrayed in the Ghanaian mathematics curricula
The analysis of the curriculum revealed nine general educational values: commitment to achieving excellence, diversity, equity, respect, teamwork/collaboration, relevance, truth and integrity, innovation, and problem-solving, as shown in Table 1. Six of these values were explicitly spelt out in the curriculum, whereas the other three emerged from the open coding of the data. These six core values include: commitment to achieving excellence, diversity, equity, teamwork and collaboration, truth and integrity and respect. The other three values identified are problem-solving, relevance, and innovation.
General Educational Values Portrayed in the Ghanaian Mathematics Curricula.
General Educational Values Portrayed in the Ghanaian Mathematics Curricula.
The results in Table 1 show that a total of 7,178 value references were identified, highlighting the curricula's commitment to integrating these values into mathematics education. Commitment to achieving excellence (1773) recorded the highest reference, followed by Problem-solving (1197), Innovation (817), Truth and Integrity (807), Teamwork/Collaboration (767), Relevance (717), Diversity (553), Equity (467), and lastly Respect (80).
The most frequently referenced value was Commitment to Achieving Excellence, constituting 24.7% of the total references. Case 1 is a statement found in all three curricula, which indicates the development of persistence and goal-oriented learning among students. It underlines the expectation for learners to embrace challenges and strive for excellence. Case 1: Learners must be taught to appreciate the opportunities provided through the curriculum and persist in doing their best in whatever field of endeavour as global citizens.
Problem-solving was the second most prominent, referenced in 16.7% of the references. This suggests a significant focus on equipping learners with the ability to address real-world challenges. Although problem-solving is not one of the spelt-out values in the curriculum, it was widely portrayed implicitly in all curricula, as in many cases, such as Case 2. Case 2: gives learners responsibility for defining their learning experience and planning to solve the problem. (UP and LP, p. xv [similar statement in JHS p. xxiii])
Innovation emerged as another critical theme, which was also not explicitly stated in the curricula, accounting for 11.4% of the references. Case 3 exemplifies the curriculum's commitment to fostering innovative approaches in mathematics, encouraging learners to value creativity and explore new ideas. Case 3: Derive the rule for a set of points of a relation, draw a table of values to graph the relation in a number plane and make predictions about subsequent elements of the relation. (JHS1, p. 27)
Case 3 illustrates phases of abstraction and generalization, requiring learners to move beyond procedures into conceptual exploration. Emphasizing pattern recognition and future reasoning aims to develop learners’ ability to formulate and extend mathematical ideas, which is vital for innovative thinking.
The value of Truth and Integrity was highlighted in 11.2% of the references, reflecting a commitment to nurturing ethical and morally upright learners. This is also an explicitly stated value that all curricula sought to develop (Case 4). Case 4: The curriculum aims to develop learners into individuals who will consistently tell the truth irrespective of the consequences. (LP, p. xiii; UP, p. xiii and JHS, p. xvii)
The value of Teamwork/Collaboration constituted 10.7% of the references, highlighting the importance of cooperative learning environments. The curricula were intentionally designed to develop the value of teamwork and collaboration among learners. For instance, Case 5 emphasizes the recognition of the social nature of learning, encouraging collaborative efforts that enhance mathematical inquiry and foster a sense of community among learners. Case 5: E.g. 2. Learners work together in their groups to order a given set of numbers … (UP5, p. 57)
Relevance was referenced in 10.0% of the cases, indicating the curriculum's focus on connecting mathematical concepts to real-life situations. In Case 6, the lower primary curriculum highlights the importance of making mathematics both applicable and meaningful, enabling learners to see the value of their studies in everyday contexts. Case 6: B1.1.4.1. Identify coins, their values and the relationships among them in order to recognize the need for monetary transactions. (LP1, p. 13)
The emphasis on Diversity was represented in 7.7% of the references, underscoring the curriculum's role in fostering inclusivity and broadening learners’ perspectives. It is stated in the teaching philosophy of all three curricula that: Case 7: Mathematics education must provide learners with opportunities to expand, change, enhance and modify the ways in which they view the world. (LP, p. v; UP, p. vi; JHS, p. xii)
The value of Equity accounted for 6.5% of the references, highlighting fairness and inclusivity in educational access and outcomes. Case 8 reinforces the curriculum's commitment to ensuring that every student has access to quality education, regardless of their background. Case 8: All learners are entitled to a broad and balanced curriculum in every school in Ghana. (LP, p. xvi, UP, p. xvi; JHS p. xxviii)
Lastly, Respect was the least referenced value at 1.1%, yet it remains fundamental to the curricula. Case 9 illustrates the curriculum's commitment to valuing diverse viewpoints and fostering a respectful learning environment where all learners feel valued. Case 9: They also respect and value the views of others. (LP, p. vii; UP, p. vii)
The data were further analyzed to find out how these values are represented in the introduction section and strands in the curricula. Figure 2 illustrates how all the values are represented in each section. It is not surprising that commitment to achieving excellence stands out in almost all the sections, as it recorded the highest references, as indicated in Table 1.
Representation of values across the main sections of the curricula.
Additionally, Figure 2 shows that the bars of values in strand 1 are, on average, taller than those in the other strands. This highlights its prominence in the representation of values in Ghanaian lower primary, upper primary, and JHS mathematics curricula. Notwithstanding, innovation recorded the second lowest bar. Thus, Strand 1-Numbers does not emphasize innovation. This limited emphasis suggests the curriculum focuses mainly on procedural and rule-based number concepts, leaving less space for exploratory or creative mathematical thinking. Moreover, problem-solving was more emphasized under Strand 2-Algebra than any other value. This was followed closely by commitment to achieving excellence, and teamwork/collaboration. The prominence of teamwork and problem-solving indicates algebra as a conceptual space for cooperative strategies and peer inquiry in the curriculum.
Strand 3-Geometry and Measurement exhibited the highest frequency of innovation, underscoring its potential to foster visual-spatial reasoning and flexible thinking. Despite this, commitment to achieving excellence remained the most frequently referenced value in this strand, reinforcing its overarching importance across all content areas.
Strand 4 recorded a nearly even distribution of values, as in the case of the introduction section. Diversity, equity, and respect bars distorted the evenness to some extent. This was a result of the lower representation of these attributes in general across all strands.
The analysis of the valuing pedagogies revealed significant insights across three primary dimensions: affective, cognitive, and social aspects. The results are shown in Table 2. Table 2 illustrates the emphasis on various pedagogical approaches within the Ghanaian lower primary, upper primary, and JHS mathematics curricula, with a total of 8,124 references to valuing pedagogies.
Valuing Pedagogies in the Ghanaian Lower Primary, Upper Primary, and JHS Mathematics Curricula.
Valuing Pedagogies in the Ghanaian Lower Primary, Upper Primary, and JHS Mathematics Curricula.
Note. Percentages are calculated relative to total codes within each value pair group.
*EDI = equity, diversity, and inclusion. **Percentages reflect the relative proportion of each aspect.
The curricula strongly prioritize the affective aspect, which accounts for 51.6% of valuing references, followed by the cognitive aspect (36.7%). The social aspect of valuing pedagogies is comparatively low with 11.7% of total valuing references, which may suggest areas for further development in creating a supportive environment for learners’ self-expression and confidence.
The results from Table 2 reveal distinct patterns across the affective, cognitive, and social dimensions of pedagogy.
Explicit versus implicit learning
In the affective aspect, there is a relatively balanced distribution between explicit learning (50.1%) and implicit learning (49.9%), with a slight preference for explicit learning. Explicit learning stresses structured activities that promote engagement and enjoyment, as seen in Case 12. Case 12: Use objects and pictorial models to solve word problems involving joining, separating, and comparing sets within 20 and unknowns as any one of terms in problems such as 9 + 7 = [], 13 + [] = 19 and 14 − [] = 3. (LP1, p. 6)
Implicit learning, on the other hand, encourages reflection and self-awareness, as seen in Case 13a. This approach develops deeper conceptual understanding by focusing on error correction and reflection on mathematical processes. Case 13a: Count by 1s (forwards and backwards) between two given numbers between 0 and 100; or by 2s and 10s; Identify and correct errors or omissions in counting or skip counting sequences. (LP1, p. 2) Case 13b: Understanding the relationship between addition and subtraction and demonstrating the interconnection between operations. (LP3, p. 49)
Serious learning versus playful learning
The preference for serious learning (90.3%) over playful learning (9.7%) reflects a stronger emphasis on structured, outcome-driven pedagogies.
Serious learning approaches, such as identifying and correcting errors in counting (Case 14a) and using strategies like making tens (Case 14b), were highly valued for promoting critical thinking and accuracy in problem-solving. Case 14a: Identify and correct errors or omissions in counting or skip counting sequences. (LP1, p. 2) Case 14b: Making 10s. (LP1, p. 9) Case 15: E.g. 1. Invite pairs of learners to play the ‘opposite game’ (i.e. a learner performs an action and the partner does the opposite whilst the rest of the class serve as referees). (LP3, p. 46)
Cognitive aspect
Domain learning versus life learning
Turning to the cognitive aspect, there is a clear preference for domain-specific knowledge (65.9%) over life learning (34.1%). Domain learning focuses on conceptual understanding and developing procedural fluency, which is a cornerstone of mathematical learning, as shown in case 16a. Thus, curricula find the understanding of abstract mathematical concepts, helping learners become more versatile in their mathematical thinking, evident in both Cases 16a and 16b. Case 16a: Add a given set of numbers in two different ways (e.g., 35 + 54 and 54 + 35 or 18 + 12 + 3 and 3 + 18 + 12) and explaining why the order in which numbers are added does not change the sum. (LP2, p. 24) Case 16b: E.g. 1. Use number line to locate one eight by defining the interval from 0 to 1 as the whole and partitioning it into 8 equal parts. (UP4, p. 19)
Life-related applications, such as those seen in Case 17a, “Determining the number of non-working bulbs in Daniel's household,” and Case 17b, which involves financial literacy activities like recognizing and comparing Ghanaian coins, highlight the practical application of mathematics in everyday contexts. However, these life-related applications occupy a secondary position in the curricula compared to domain-specific knowledge. Case 17b: 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) Case 17c: B9.3.3.1.2 Understand enlargement and identify real-life situations involving enlargement. (JHS9, p. 210)
Quality learning versus quantity learning
The curricula reflect a valuing of quality learning over quantity. Nonetheless, both valuing pedagogies were well represented in the curricula. The curricula emphasize conceptual clarity and practical understanding, ensuring learners grasp fundamental ideas as exemplified in Case 18. Case 18: E.g. 1. Use 1-to-1 correspondence or matching to solve problems that involve comparing 2 sets having between 1 to 100 objects and explain how he/she solved the problem (finding which set has more or less, which groups have the same as). (LP1, p. 4) Case19: B8.3.1.2.3: Construct loci under given conditions including:
(i) the locus of sets of points from a fixed point; (ii) the locus of points equidistant from two fixed points; (iii) the locus of points equidistant from two intersecting straight lines. (JHS8, p. 133)
Social aspect
The
Achievement versus EDI
In the social aspect, there is a stronger focus on achievement (70.8%) than on EDI (29.2%). Social interactions that the curricula expect to take place were more achievement-focused. This was evident in Case 20. Case 20: E.g. 4. Learners role play a given word problem involving subtraction and division and solve. (UP4, p. 14) Case 21: Put learners in convenient groups, give each group a number grid and have them identify numbers in different positions around a chosen number. (UP4, P5)
Realizing learning versus saving face
Realizing learning (68.8%) is prioritized over saving face (31.2%). Realizing learning was exemplified in Case 22, which promotes communication and active participation, where learners focus more on the mathematical task and not any other social and emotional interferences. Case 22: E.g. Bring two learners of different heights to the front of the class, and take the height of one pupil. On the basis of that height ask a pupil to estimate the height of the other pupil and then measure the actual height to compare with their estimation. (LP2, p. 38) Case 23: E.g. 2. Learners work together in their groups to order a given set of numbers…. (UP5, p. 57)
Valuing pedagogies against general educational values
The data were analyzed to determine the interplay between valuing pedagogies and general educational values. The results, as shown in Table 3, show that each valuing pedagogy tends to emphasize certain general educational values. Thus, the prioritization of certain pedagogical practices can define the core values of an education system.
Reference Matrix of Valuing Pedagogies Against General Educational Values.
Reference Matrix of Valuing Pedagogies Against General Educational Values.
Note. Cells show raw count (row %/column %).
*EDI = equity, diversity, and inclusion.
In Table 3, each cell reports the frequency co-occurrence count together with the row percentage (indicating how each valuing pedagogy distributes its emphasis across values) and the column percentage (indicating how each value is expressed across pedagogies). This allows comparison that is not distorted by different category totals.
The results show that Commitment to Achieving Excellence co-occurs strongly with Serious learning (21.6%) and Implicit learning (16.7%), as reflected in their comparatively high column percentages. This indicates that structured, goal-oriented instructional practices foreground high performance, precision, and quality work more consistently than exploratory or informal pedagogies. Likewise, Problem-solving shows notable co-occurrence with Serious learning (22.1%) and Implicit learning (15.9%), suggesting that strategic reasoning and the internalization of mathematical thinking often emerge within learning episodes where knowledge is being consolidated, rather than overtly explained.
Other value pairs also shared their value codes differently from the general educational values. As serious learning and domain learning shift more towards commitment to achieving excellence, their value pairs playful learning and life learning share the highest of their valued codes with relevance. Also, it can be observed from Table 3 that Teamwork/Collaboration has comparatively higher row percentages with EDI (21.9%), Realizing learning (20.7%), and Saving face (35.5%). These are three of the four social value pairs; the social aspect of valuing pedagogies shares more similar valuing activities with Teamwork/collaboration. This suggests that collaborative activity creates conditions in which students must actively coordinate perspectives, negotiate participation, and acknowledge each other's contributions.
Moreover, it can be seen from Table 3 that relevance is heavily referenced in life learning (22.6%). Thus, although life learning is less prominent compared to its value pair-domain learning (refer to Table 2), it is largely associated with finding the Relevance of the mathematics students learn. Additionally, Problem-solving (22.1%) is referenced more frequently in Serious learning than in other valuing pedagogies. This demonstrates how pedagogical activity that values serious learning is associated with the valuing of problem-solving. Following close to serious learning was implicit learning, showing the implicit nature of valuing problem-solving in the curriculum. The proximity of Implicit learning to problem-solving further suggests that some aspects of reasoning are internalized through experience and practice rather than direct instruction.
Taken together, the pattern of co-occurrences in Table 3 demonstrates that valuing pedagogies do not operate in isolation. Instead, each pedagogy selectively amplifies particular educational values, meaning that the values students experience and express have a lot to do with the pedagogical form in use. This finding aligns with the conceptual positioning illustrated in Figure 1, which portrays valuing pedagogies as mechanisms through which specific values are foregrounded in student learning experiences.
The recent call for attention to the explicit teaching of values cannot be discussed outside the context of the intended curriculum, which serves as the blueprint for teaching and learning. The current study examined the Ghanaian lower primary, upper primary, and JHS mathematics curricula and pointed out four significant findings:
Aside from the six values explicitly stated—commitment to achieving excellence, diversity, equity, teamwork/collaboration, truth and integrity, and respect—three other values, namely, problem-solving, innovation and relevance, were portrayed in the lower primary, upper primary, and JHS mathematics curricula. The results showed an uneven distribution of values across the various sections of the curriculum. The three aspects of the valuing pedagogies pairs were all espoused in the Ghanaian mathematics curriculum, with the affective aspect being the most prominent and the social aspect being less prominent. The six valuing pedagogy pairs exhibited an unbalanced valuing, except for the explicit learning (50.1%) and implicit learning (49.9%) valuing pedagogy pair, and a fair sharing of quality learning (55.7%) and quantity learning (44.3%) valuing pedagogy pairs.
General educational values in the lower primary, upper primary, and JHS mathematics curricula
The general educational values espoused in the curricula in decreasing order of their prominence are commitment to achieving excellence, problem-solving, innovation, teamwork/collaboration, truth and integrity, relevance, diversity, equity and respect. Emphasizing persistence to achieve excellence encourages students to cultivate a growth mindset, which Carr et al. (2023) argue is crucial for continuous learning in mathematics.
This valuing not only motivates students but also prepares them for future academic and professional endeavors where excellence is often expected.
The emphasis on problem-solving as a key value, despite not being explicitly stated in the curriculum, indicates a recognition of its importance in equipping students with the skills necessary to navigate real-world challenges. It is important to note that problem-solving is one of the core competencies that the Ghanaian mathematics curriculum seeks to develop (MOE, 2018). The core competency emphasizes that effective learning environments should promote critical thinking and problem-solving abilities. By implicitly integrating problem-solving into the curriculum, educators acknowledge that mathematics education must transcend rote memorization and procedural tasks, preparing students to engage meaningfully with societal issues and complexities.
Moreover, the emphasis on fostering creative thinking aligns with research suggesting that innovative methods, including student-centered activities, link theoretical knowledge to practical application, while technologies boost student engagement and comprehension of complex concepts (Biehler et al., 2024). Providing students with opportunities to create and explore new mathematical ideas not only enriches their understanding of the subject but also prepares them for a rapidly changing world, where adaptability and creativity are increasingly valuable.
Valuing teamwork/collaboration in the curricula underscores the social nature of learning. Collaborative learning environments promote the development of essential interpersonal skills and foster a sense of community among students. Encouraging cooperative efforts in mathematics education not only enhances understanding but also prepares students to work effectively in diverse teams, a skill that is crucial in today's interconnected world.
The emphasis on relevance in mathematics education underscores the importance of connecting academic content with students’ lived experiences. Research has consistently shown that when students see the practical applications of what they are learning, their motivation and engagement increase (Mebert et al., 2020). This relevance helps students understand the significance of mathematics in their daily lives and encourages them to view the subject as a valuable tool for problem-solving in their communities.
While values such as truth and integrity are prominently emphasized within the curriculum, the comparatively lower focus on diversity, equity, and respect raises significant concerns about the overall learning environment. Truth and integrity serve as foundational principles that guide ethical behavior and foster a sense of accountability among students and educators alike. However, the lesser emphasis on respect can hinder the creation of an inclusive atmosphere where all students feel valued and heard. Emphasizing respect creates a classroom environment where students feel safe and valued, which is essential for effective learning. In a multicultural context like Ghana, promoting these values can foster stronger relationships and enhance the overall educational experience. This alignment with inclusive practices is crucial for addressing local and global educational goals, such as those outlined by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 4, which advocates for inclusive and equitable quality education for all (UN, 2015).
Representation of values across strands and introduction sections in mathematics curricula
The distribution of value references across the introduction section and the four strands reflects curricula with distinct priorities in promoting specific educational ideals. The significant representation of values in Strand 1-Numbers indicates its pivotal role in promoting mathematical learning in the curriculum. This highlights its foundational importance, as numerical competence is critical for building mathematical proficiency. Results such as these may, to some extent, explain why JHS students performed better in numbers compared to other strands (Davis et al., 2022). However, the comparatively low emphasis on innovation within Numbers suggests a gap in fostering creativity and novel problem-solving approaches in basic numerical contexts.
Algebra's notable emphasis on valuing problem-solving, alongside high references to commitment to achieving excellence and teamwork/collaboration, illustrates its role in equipping students with essential analytical and cooperative skills. On the other hand, the less portrayal of relevance and innovation calls for attention. It is worrying, as studies on Ghanaian learners’ algebra knowledge levels (Mills & Mereku, 2016; Osei & Agyei, 2024) reveal that students operate below higher-order behavior dimensions, such as application. Osei and Agyei argue that students experience significant difficulties in applying algebraic knowledge in real-life contexts and in problem-solving, compared to the lower domain of behavioral dimensions, such as knowledge and understanding. Hence, emphasizing values (e.g., innovation, relevance) that are required to motivate the acquisition of this domain knowledge should be a great concern to curriculum developers and teachers as well.
Geometry and Measurement stands out for its emphasis on innovation, surpassing other strands in this regard. This highlights the strand's potential to foster creative and visual thinking, leveraging the exploratory nature of geometry. However, the continued dominance of commitment to achieving excellence, even within this strand, suggests that while innovation is encouraged, it is still secondary to the pursuit of excellence. The comparable levels of problem-solving and innovation in this strand demonstrate an effort to balance these values. However, the lesser representation of relevance warrants attention, as there are growing concerns about the disconnect between the conceptual understanding of geometry and its real-world applications (Rosa & Orey, 2020).
In Strand 4-Data, the nearly even distribution of values reflects a broader and more balanced approach to integrating various educational ideals. The higher value of truth and integrity is a very positive result. Emphasizing the importance of truth and integrity within this strand is key to ensuring that students are prepared to collect and handle valid and reliable data more efficiently. It reflects the recognition of the ethical importance of accuracy and honesty in data handling. However, the underrepresentation of diversity, equity, and respect disrupts this balance, suggesting that these social values may not yet be fully integrated into the strand's design. This contributes to existing issues, such as the mathematics curriculum's insufficient attention to cultural and social matters (Davis & Seah, 2016).
Similarly, the introduction section exhibits an even distribution of values but shares this underrepresentation of social values, indicating a broader need for their enhanced integration across the curriculum. Hence, curriculum implementers should be encouraged not to skip the introduction sections of official documents, for they contain essential elements which set the tone for implementing pedagogical activities. It is in these sections that curriculum developers explicitly define values which they intend for an education system to develop. Skipping these pages may result in the loss of relevant information necessary for the smooth implementation of a curriculum.
Portrayal of valuing pedagogies in the Ghanaian lower primary, upper primary, and JHS mathematics curricula
The findings suggest that affective valuing pedagogies, particularly serious learning, dominate the curriculum, with explicit learning also being highly prioritized. This preference for serious and explicit learning indicates a structured, goal-oriented approach to education, where clear expectations and outcomes are prioritized. The relatively low value given to playful learning points to a traditional view of pedagogy that may not sufficiently emphasize creativity or informal learning experiences in the classroom. This may be as a result of some lapses in the curriculum development process. Oyedeji (2015) notes some of these shortcomings as the absence of an indigenous education policy and lack of stakeholder involvement in the policy formulation process, all of which negatively impact the formulation and achievement of policy objectives. Looking ahead, curriculum implementers might explore the use of local, culturally relevant games as powerful vehicles for teaching mathematical concepts (Russo et al., 2021).
In the cognitive aspect, the preference for domain-specific learning over life learning suggests that curricula value specialized knowledge and expertise in mathematics rather than integrating learning across broader life contexts. Cultural factors, such as an emphasis on academic excellence and formal education, may contribute to this preference. Traditionally, Ghanaian society holds specialized knowledge in subjects that align with professional and career success, such as mathematics, science, and business, in high regard. Lifelong learning in mathematics is strengthened when instruction is embedded within culturally relevant contexts, a shift that addresses the persistent challenge of teaching mathematics outside learners’ lived realities. To respond to this gap, the Three-tier model was proposed as a framework for situating mathematical ideas meaningfully across diverse cultural settings (Davis, 2017). The enculturating stage of the model focuses on incorporating students’ backgrounds and real-life experiences into the lesson, transitioning to the universal notion of mathematical concepts.
The relatively balanced preference between quality and quantity might reflect a recognition of the need for both deep, high-quality learning and the acquisition of a sufficient amount of knowledge. The balanced preference between quality and quantity of learning may reflect the cultural importance placed on achieving high standards in education while ensuring a broad acquisition of knowledge to meet societal expectations (Banson, 2022). This dual focus may stem from the community's aspiration for well-rounded individuals who excel in both depth and breadth of knowledge.
The social aspect reveals a notable emphasis on achievement-oriented learning, prioritizing academic success over concerns related to EDI. This trend may reflect a traditional focus on measurable academic outcomes rather than fostering inclusive learning environments. Similarly, the greater value placed on realizing learning outcomes over saving face suggests a pragmatic approach where results take precedence over social or emotional concerns. The emphasis on realizing learning over saving face may stem from a cultural issue where teachers and students strive to avoid making errors, despite the importance of addressing students’ misconceptions for effective teaching and learning (Ampadu, 2012). Ampadu's study revealed that Ghanaian students were hesitant to participate in class discussions unless they felt confident in their answers, fearing ridicule from their peers if they made a mistake. If these issues are not given greater attention and explicit emphasis in curriculum documents, they will continue to have a negative impact on teaching and learning. More specifically, this serves as a challenge to the development of students’ innovative, creative, and problem-solving skills.
Moreover, applying Bishop's (1996) general education and Chiu and Seah's (2024) valuing pedagogies framework, it became evident that valuing pedagogies play a significant role in fostering the development of these broader educational values. For instance, the lesser prominence of the social aspect of valuing pedagogies was evident in the less emphasis on valuing diversity, equity, and respect. Also, valuing pedagogies such as serious learning shared the majority of their value references with a commitment to achieving excellence. This is in line with the assertion that values are reflected in teachers’ teaching pedagogies (Seah, 2019; Zhang & Lam, 2024). In addition, while serious and domain learning reinforce commitment to achieving excellence, playful, and life learning are shown to be significantly associated with relevance. This divergence heightens the importance of balance in pedagogical approaches, fostering traditional academic excellence while simultaneously ensuring the content resonates with students’ lived experiences. Relevance, as a value, is particularly significant for life learning, stressing the need for mathematics to connect with real-world contexts (Davis & Abass, 2023).
Also, teamwork/collaboration appears to resonate deeply with social dimensions of learning, evidenced by its association with saving face, realizing learning and EDI. This alignment reflects the role of collaborative practices in fostering mutual support and shared accountability among students. Importantly, its strong ties with EDI suggest that social values are integral to creating inclusive learning environments. This observation aligns with the principles of social constructivism, which views learning as an inherently social process enriched by interaction and co-construction of knowledge (Adams, 2006; Vygotsky, 1978).
The distribution of codes among these values and pedagogies reflects the complexity of designing a curriculum that effectively integrates cognitive, affective, and social aspects of values. It is clear from examining these alignments that some values and valuing pedagogies receive more attention than others (Oeschger et al., 2022; Ofori Nyarko & Chiu, 2026). Curriculum writers should consider areas that are currently underemphasized to ensure a well-rounded learning experience, particularly those that support lifelong learning and adaptability, which are essential for students in a rapidly changing world (OECD, 2018; Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012).
Conclusion
This study examined the representation of values and valuing pedagogies in the lower primary, upper primary, and JHS mathematics curricula in Ghana. The findings highlight both the explicit and implicit presence of values within the curriculum, demonstrating a varied emphasis on different types of values and pedagogical approaches. The six explicitly stated values—commitment to achieving excellence, teamwork/collaboration, truth and integrity, diversity, equity, and respect—are reflected, albeit with varying degrees of prominence. The additional identification of values such as problem-solving, innovation, and relevance suggests an implicit acknowledgement of their importance, despite their absence from explicit curriculum statements.
The uneven spread of values across various strands, particularly the dominance of Commitment to Achieving Excellence in nearly all sections, suggests a curriculum that focuses on developing achievement values. However, the underrepresentation of values such as Diversity, Equity, and Respect raises concerns about the inclusivity and holistic development of students’ values. These social values, which are crucial for fostering an inclusive and supportive learning environment, appear to be marginal in the curriculum design, especially in comparison to pedagogical activities that emphasize individual achievement. This raises a concern as these values are essential for equitable education.
Moreover, valuing pedagogies such as explicit learning and serious learning dominate the curriculum, reinforcing a focus on structured, goal-oriented education. This preference aligns with a traditional, outcome-focused approach, which prioritizes measurable academic success over broader, socially oriented educational goals. However, the strong association between teamwork/collaboration and social dimensions of learning highlights the importance of fostering values related to EDI. While playful learning receives less emphasis, the results revealed its potential to enhance students’ appreciation of the relevance of mathematics, as well as to foster teamwork and collaboration, should not be overlooked.
While the Ghanaian lower primary, upper primary, and JHS mathematics curricula have made strides in integrating key values like commitment to achieving excellence, there is a need for more attention to the underrepresented values of diversity, equity, and respect. By addressing these gaps, the curriculum can promote a more inclusive, holistic, and meaningful educational experience. The dominance of explicit instruction and serious learning suggests that teacher-led pedagogies remain prevalent, potentially limiting opportunities for student exploration. The relatively low emphasis on playful learning further indicates that students may have fewer chances to engage in inquiry-based or self-directed learning experiences. By highlighting effective pedagogical strategies that balance values with student-centered practices, the curriculum can support holistic development while ensuring that mathematics education remains relevant and engaging for all students.
Limitations and Implications
The decision to limit the scope of this study to the official mathematics curriculum documents was primarily guided by the need to examine the foundational framework that defines the intended learning outcomes and the values that are prioritized within the educational system. However, curricula do not capture the full range of instructional strategies and practices that occur in the classroom. Student and teacher handbooks often provide additional context, resources, and supplementary guidance that may influence how values are understood and implemented. Further studies can look at these documents to get a wide range of data to support preliminary studies such as this.
Furthermore, the study does not account for how valuing pedagogies are enacted in classroom settings. While the curriculum provides the intended content and learning goals, classroom dynamics, teaching practices, and contextual factors play a crucial role in how values are perceived and applied. By focusing only on the curriculum, the study may overlook these important variables, limiting its ability to fully capture how values are implemented in practice.
Moreover, the study was limited to extracting values from the curriculum and not paying much attention to other factors that can influence value representations, such as grade level. Looking forward, further studies can be conducted to realize how values and valuing pedagogies unfold in curricular materials of different grade levels. Future research could explore how these values are enacted in classroom settings and how they compare with valuing pedagogical approaches in different educational contexts, thereby contributing to discussions on cross-cultural studies. Also, the exclusion of the SHS curriculum limits the generalizability of the findings to basic education. Future work should examine whether the valuing patterns observed here are sustained, intensified, or reshaped at the SHS level.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-mea-10.1177_27527263261445660 - Supplemental material for Values and valuing pedagogies in the Ghanaian mathematics curricula
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-mea-10.1177_27527263261445660 for Values and valuing pedagogies in the Ghanaian mathematics curricula by Addison Ofori Nyarko in Asian Journal for Mathematics Education
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The candid supervision and support of Prof. Wee Tiong Seah during the initial stages of the study, and Prof. Mei-Shiu Chiu for her supervision throughout the study.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Author Biography
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
