Ministarstvo prosvete, nauke i tehnološkog razvoja Republike Srbije (institucija: Univerzitet u Beogradu, Učiteljski fakultet) (MPNTR - 451-03-68/2020-14/200138)

Društveni kontekst je jedan od determinišućih faktora u kreiranju obrazovnih politika i, posebno, kurikuluma. Svrha rada je da razmotri prilagođavanje matematičkog kurikuluma aktuelnom kontekstu pandemije. Polazeći od istorijskog razvoja matematičkog kurikuluma u Srbiji i pretpostavke da su uslovi u društvu uslovili promenu kurikuluma, hipotetičko deduktivnom metodom evidentiranjem i komparacijom iskustava konstatovane su i diskutovane karakteristike procesa planiranja, organizovanja i realizacije nastave matematike u pandemiji. Diskutuje se o načinu na koji su društveni kontekst i društvene institucije uticali na razlike između planiranog i implementiranog matematičkog kurikuluma. Zaključeno je da je kurikulum preusmeren ka modernističkom pristupu uz oslonac na informacionim tehnologijama.

Abstract

The social context is one of the determining factors in the creation of educational policies and, in particular, the curriculum. The purpose of this paper is to consider adapting the mathematics curriculum to the current context of the pandemic. Starting from the historical development of the mathematics curriculum in Serbia and the assumption that the conditions in society conditioned the change of the curriculum, the characteristics of the process of planning, organizing and implementing mathematics teaching in a pandemic were ascertained and discussed by a hypothetical deductive method of editing and comparing experiences. The way in which the social context and social institutions influenced the differences between the planned and implemented mathematics curriculum is discussed. It was concluded that the curriculum was redirected towards a modernist approach based on information technologies.

Introdution notes

Social reality is also reflected in a seemingly separate segment of education, such as the mathematics curriculum. Historically, the character of the mathematics curriculum has basically been a reflection of the cultural context. Different theoretical orientations, which in the twentieth century were the basis for changes in the system of mathematics education, led to new controversies that, among other things, break down in the understanding of the general curriculum and specifically, the mathematics curriculum (Klafki, Schulz, von Cube, Möller, Winkel, &Blankertz, 1994). The COVID-19 pandemic changed the social context and caused changes in various segments of the functioning of society and social policies, as well as in the sphere of education and educational policies (Vuletić, 2020). Yet national responses to the pandemic in the world of education were diverse. How did the pandemic affect the mathematics curriculum in Serbia?

About curriculum

Let's start with the explanation of the term curriculum. In various interpretations, a curriculum means a curriculum or catalog of knowledge or a compendium that students should adopt with the help of a teacher. The curriculum means a specific state document for the management of educational activities in schools, but it can also be understood as a didactic algorithm of teaching, ie carefully planned learning and teaching. The etymologicaly curriculum metamorphoses means the period of time during which a certain path (curriculum vitae) was followed. The curriculum includes scientific setting of goals and tasks, choice of content, defining program and plan, and setting and organization of the teaching process aswell as evaluation of results, including formal and informal content and processes by which students acquire knowledge, develop abilities, build attitudes, opinions and values, and educational activities of the school. It also provides methodological guidelines for teaching methods, situations and strategies, guidelines for evaluating the achievement of outcomes, and is differentiated according to the focus on content, student or society, subject or scientific discipline (Bognar&Matijević, 2002). The curriculum is realized with an always present and limiting factor, since it takes place in time (and other) frames (which prevents us from achieving everything we want). This fact came to the fore in the context of a pandemic. The context of the pandemics itself can be analyzed as a factor that changed the curriculum.

When we talk about educational paradigms, one of the significant controversies in educational theory is the dispute between the modern and the postmodern, which begins with Heidegger. At the core of the modernist approach is the belief that the universe is unique, complete, and ready for full explanation by an analytical approach. Teaching is "intellectualistic", focused exclusively on intellectual development (Bandjur, 1985). In contrast, postmodernism, which is a reaction to modernism, is based on the belief that we live in a world of partial knowledge, local narratives, partial truths, and the evolution of identity (Lyotar, 1988). While modernism is characterized by the search for a single right answer, postmodernism is characterized by the acceptance of different answers and different definitions as equally valuable. This direction rejects that the world can be understood through a single theory and emphasizes the importance of the social context. The student is at the center of teaching activities, and teaching is based on the spontaneous interests of students, their abilities and capabilities (which essentially requires individualized teaching) (Bandjur, 1985). We can recognize modernism in Taylor's conception of the curriculum, which boils down to 4 basic questions: What tasks does the state want to accomplish? What educational experiences will enable the realization of these tasks? How to organize these experiences effectively? How can we determine whether these tasks have been accomplished (Tyler, 1949).

For our discussion, it is important to keep in mind the contrasts of closed and open curriculum. Behavioral paradigms are based on psychological empiricism and sociological positivism and a goal-oriented "cybernetically shaped" approach to the teaching process (Banđur, 1991). At the core of this paradigm is the focus to prepare individuals for a range of specific activities through education. To create a curriculum in this paradigm, it is necessary to identify the fragments that make up specific jobs and determine what abilities, behaviors, habits, and knowledge are needed. The operational tasks in the curriculum created in this way are concrete, defined and partial, while the curriculum is a kind of series of experiences that will lead children and young people to achieve these tasks (Ibid). The closed curriculum is characterized by precisely operationalized learning goals, that certain steps leading to the achievement of goals are precisely determined for each level of schooling, and that spontaneous initiatives of students and teachers to research and seek original solutions are considered hindering and slowing down to achieve goals. teaching (Posch, Larcher&Altricher, 1996). Pos and associates emphasize the passive role of teachers as technical executors of curricula in the development of which they did not participate. Failure in this paradigm is attributed to the incompetence of teachers and their insufficient professional qualifications.

On the other hand, there is an open curriculum, created as a reaction to a closed curriculum theory. He has his theoretical foundations in progressive education as well as various modern psychological theories such as humanism, constructivism, Gardner's multiple intelligences and sociological theories of multiculturalism, emancipation and critical theory. Such a curriculum connects spiritual-scientific (historical-hermeneutic) orientation and positivist (experiential-empirical and experimental) didactic orientation. The characteristics of the open curriculum are: the result of the learning process is not determined from the beginning, but is achieved with individual participation; goals are not seen as something immutable but as an orientation that shows the perspective of the learning process; individual planned steps in learning are not taken as something final and unchangeable but as incentives offered for choice; it is especially important to take into account the experience of students and teachers, ie to bring objective requirements into relation with subjective experience; achievement control should provide insight into what has been achieved, but also be an occasion for criticism and deepening of experience.

Teaching planning. Teaching planning theorists point out different aspects of this process. In Weniger's setting of didactics as a theory of education (which is related to Otto Wilman and Georg Kerschensteiner), the basic category of education is content from reality that is transformed into tasks that need to be mastered (Bandjur, 1991). Wolfgang Klafki, the creator of didactics as an integrated critical-constructive theory, advocates that educational content be determined according to the psychophysical abilities of children, but also according to the cultural context. The choice of content is conditioned by the structure of the science of the subject. Within this didactics is a model of teaching planning which starts from the analysis of socio-cultural opportunities of students and the conditions of the educational institution and includes the following areas: 1) social conditions of children, 2) meaning for the future, 3) exemplary meaning, 4) thematic structures, 5) possibility of (self) evaluation, 6) accessibility and presentation of topics (with the help of specific actions, games, media), 7) methodical structuring of the learning and teaching process, implying primarily the process of social learning.

Wolfang Shulz built the Hamburg model of teaching planning in which he makes a distinction between different levels of planning: 1) perspective planning (annual or semi-annual planning of teaching units); 2) thematic planning (planning of teaching units for one thematic unit); 3) process planning (planning of teaching steps, forms, methods); 4) corrective planning (reacting to situations that arose outside the plan). Schulz advocated for the participation of other education actors in the planning process (parent students).

Elements of teaching that are important when it comes to planning lessons are the field of decision making and the field of conditions. The fields of decision-making include: a) intentionality (intentions or goals to be achieved by teaching), b) contents (curricula, topics to be realized), c) methods and d) media (teaching aids) (Vilotijević, 1997, p. 86). Hyman identifies the elements of the methodological aspects of teaching: 1) determining the methodological idea; 2) articulation of teaching; 3) socio forms; 4) methodical activities of teachers and students; 5) forms of verification (Vilotijević, 1997, p. 90). The media are mediators of communication between students and content. Intention, contents, methods and media, but also anthropological-psychological and socio-cultural conditions are interdependent (Ibid). Researchers notes that the social context of the COVID-19 pandemic is a "digital pandemic in terms of dynamics, origins and impact" which emphasizes the complexity and hyperconnectivity of the global system that stems in part from the impact of information technology as a medium of communication on all aspects of society (Tsekeris, Zeri, 2020, p. 505). Ristić's and Mandić's observation that in modern educational systems information-educational technologies have the potential to substantially change the teaching process, is actualized in the conditions of a pandemic (Ristic and Mandic, 2018).

Mathematics curriculum

The goal of teaching mathematics can be presented as a synthesis of general cultural, scientific (including mathematical) and applied goals (Sriraman&English, 2010). The mathematics curriculum comes from a cultural context and therefore cannot be viewed independently of culture. Stanic and Kilpatrick identify general politics and cultural context as factors that strongly influence the mathematics curriculum (Stanic & Kilpatrick, 2004; see Figure 1).

Figure 1 Adapted from Bartolini Bussi & Martignone, 2013, FLM Слика 1 Адаптирано из Bartolini Bussi & Martignone, 2013, FLM

Tradition and national peculiarity of mathematics curriculum in Serbia. The concept of mathematical literacy implicitly promotes a certain social practice (Jablonka, 2003). It is indisputable that modern national cultures have much in common. They share a common civilization, a more or less similar economy, a philosophical framework, scientific knowledge (especially mathematics). Although there are factors that limit the variability in mathematics curricula and influence their application, it is still present. The attribute national curriculum derives from the fact that it reflects the cultural values of society and there is no one ideal mathematical curriculum for everything and forever. The backbone of the curriculum is, in regular times, national (state) teaching and learning standards and outcomes specified in the curriculum. They expressed expectations that oblige the direct bearers of educational activities, as well as indirect participants in upbringing and education, to strive to achieve these goals and standards.

Although Serbia has been a part of different countries throughout history, one can follow the development of the school and especially the teaching of mathematics in Serbia. The term curriculum entered school practice in Serbia in the 1980s (Poljak, 1984). The first documents that had some form of plan appear in the form of school regulations in which the list of subjects and clues about what is the content of the subjects to be taught in school and sometimes the clues about what is the content of those subjects. Thus, in the school law from 1874, Calculation and Geometric Obituation are mentioned. Since the first half of the 19th century, there have been prescribed textbooks which the laws say are the only books that may be used.

After 1945, Serbian pedagogy was influenced by Soviet pedagogy and didactics (Milinković, 2018). One of the founders of the new direction in the Yugoslav context was Stjepan Pataki. With the appearance of his works New Pedagogy, Philosophical Pedagogy and others, Yugoslav pedagogy was gradually formed, characterized by the search for solutions between the "old school" and Herbart's conception of teaching as well as reform directions symbolically represented by Dewey and a liberal approach to curriculum development.

Since the 1960s, the Scientific approach to the development of the school curriculum has dominated in Serbia, and specifically in mathematics education, the movement for the systematic formalization of mathematical sciences (under the influence of the Burbakist school) has dominated. This perspective also reflected on the reforms of the school curriculum in mathematics. The approach that we can call "pure mathematics oriented" was focused on presenting mathematics as a system of knowledge. It is opposed to the approach that was represented in Dewey's school at the beginning of the century in America, according to which teaching was essentially based on research knowledge and guided by the interests of students. In those years, criticisms of both "Soviet" and "so-called bourgeois" pedagogy intensified. The new mathematics curriculum (New Math) was established somewhat later than in the USA, Great Britain, France, etc., it dominated Serbian education system longer than in others. Stronger critical thinking against the New Mathematics came from different sides on a global scale and reforms in the mid-80s gradually suppressed.

The current reform of the mathematics curriculum, which is in the phase of initial implementation of the new curricula, began in 2017. This curriculum reform is largely the result of institutional influences and public pressure that was dissatisfied with the achievements of Serbian students in the PISA and TIMSS examinations (Pavlović-Babić&Baucal, 2013; Milinković, Jablanović Marušić&Dabić Boričić, 2017; Milinković, 2015). The new Teaching and Learning Program has the characteristics of an open curriculum that focuses on students: a changed focus from content to student achievement; global, subject-specific changes related to the use of educational technology and the introduction of the project method and interdisciplinary thematic instructions; spirally organized subject curriculum – the same topics are taught in different classes with different scope and depth; the language used is geared towards easier comprehension using less formal explanations; introduction of electronic textbooks.

According to the Learning and Teaching Program, teaching is expected to be focused on the development of competencies, and not on achieving individual outcomes. When processing new content, we should rely on the existing experience and knowledge of students, and strive for students to independently discover mathematical regularities and draw conclusions." In addition, project methods and interdisciplinary thematic instructions imply children's group work and research activities, as well as the cooperation of teachers who teach different disciplines. The curriculum is spirally organized (eg research into the idea of measuring length by non-standard units is introduced in the first grade, the metric system and the concept of broken line length and figure circumference expressed graphically and computationally are introduced in the second grade, while learning the formula for calculating figure circumference is realized in the third grade). Curriculum settings imply that the student is the central person of the process while the basic role of the teacher is to be the organizer of the teaching process and encourages and directs student activity (Teaching and learning program for 3rd grade, 2019). In order to achieve durability and breadth of knowledge as well as training for the application of knowledge in solving various tasks, students are expected to use a textbook and other sources of knowledge. In particular, when it comes to planning, the teacher is left to choose how students will acquire appropriate competencies, emphasizing that when choosing a methodological approach, students should be able to independently discover mathematical regularities and draw conclusions. Methodological guidelines are given to take into account the age in the planning of teaching to find space for playful activities, as well as the use of educational software tools and the Internet.

Methodology

Milić points out that the subject of observation about which experiential data are collected are always selected forms of collective social life (Milić, 1978). The subject of the research is the realized mathematical curriculum in the first wave of the pandemic. The research problem is the impact of the pandemic on the realization of the mathematics curriculum. The initial assumption is that the conditions in society created by the pandemic conditioned the change of the curriculum. the mathematical curriculum realized through RTS teaching was investigated by a hypothetical deductive method. An important feature of the applied hypothetical deductive method is that it refers to the overall reality, social process, phenomena and relations (Miljević, 2007). The realized program contents of mathematics are analyzed, and in order to have a deeper analysis of the problem of adapting program contents in pandemic conditions, the effort is focused on understanding the causes of changes in the curriculum and discovering trends in the adaptation of the methodological approach.

From the research problem arise the research objectives:

determine the specifics of planning the teaching process,

determine the general characteristics of the realized online teaching through RTS,

do a comparative analysis of the content and formal curriculum.

Techniques were applied: content analysis, systematic observation of the curriculum implementation process based on the observation protocol and recording, commenting and classifying data (Milić, 1978). The research instruments are an observation protocol, a record checklist and a review and analysis of source documents and documentation (primarily the Teaching and Learning Program).

The data collection period lasted from March 16 to May 31, 2020.

Results

Teaching organization. Schools in Serbia closed on March 16, 2020, and distance learning began 7 days after that and continued until the end of the school year. It was launched through a public TV channel, while teachers established contact with students through internet applications. Math classes were broadcast until the end of May for all grades of primary and secondary school. The entire education system has shifted from individualized planning by teachers and schools to a centralized system of instruction. The Institute for the Advancement of Education and Upbringing (ZUOV) organized the preparation and broadcasting of classes on national television. The monthly schedule of classes and the choice of teaching units, the format of classes is determined under the leadership of ZUOV. It has become the obligation of all teachers to adjust their weekly plans to the schedule of broadcast content on TV. Continuation of the use of textbooks by different publishers is difficult due to the need to harmonize with the centrally imposed curriculum.

The two basic models of curriculum implementation during the first wave of the pandemic in the spring of 2020 from March to the end of the school year were 1) through the public TV service and its internet platform https://www.rts.rs/page/school/sr.html and 2) direct online contact between teachers and students. Due to health recommendations, the classes were recorded in the initial phase, the "ex-department" was simulated in classrooms without students, and in the other, in the private premises of teachers. A higher percentage of teachers in urban areas relatively quickly established direct communication with students via Zoom, Google Classroom and other applications, provided that students had the technical capabilities (computer, Android mobile phone, etc.). Teachers were required to conduct regular formative assessments as well as online periodic assessments.

Characteristics of teaching mathematics and comparison with curricular requirements. Consider the characteristics of the implemented mathematics curriculum in relation to the methodological guidelines proclaimed in the formal (planned) curriculum. (At this time, there is still no way to verify the short-term and long-term effects of the achieved curriculum.)

When it comes to work methods, the Learning and Teaching Program directs teachers to a variety of methods and forms of work. The goal is to encourage intellectual activity and motivation of students. This was not possible in the conditions of "holding" classes in an empty classroom. According to the curriculum, the choice of methods and forms of work should be harmonized not only with the contents but also with the specifics of the class and the individual characteristics of the students (Teaching and learning program for the third grade, 2019). The dominant method of working on broadcast lessons was quasi-dialogue. As a rule, the teacher asked a series of questions and answered them himself. Organizationally, the frontal form of work dominated. Given the shortened duration of the lessons, the individual form of work could realistically be realized only after the lessons. (Note that group and individual form of work could be realized with the precondition of established direct online communication teacher-student and student-student. This segment of the teaching process is not part of our analysis.)

By relocating teaching and physically separating teachers from students and students from other students, a new learning context has been effectively created. Television as a medium is not suitable for the disclosure method recommended by the curriculum. The teacher is focused on the contents and providing the conditions for achieving the minimum outcomes in half the time of that work. Indirect communication between teachers and students has fundamentally changed (reversed) the nature of learning from constructive to transfer-based (Ernest, 2014; Smith, 2014). Demonstration of calculation techniques and problem solving were the main contents of the classes. For more than that, as a rule, there was no time or opportunity. Although the active position of the students was desirable, as indicated by the incentives of the teachers sent from the screen, it was lost in reality. The teacher could not keep silent in front of the screen, nor did he have a way to continue the lesson, assuming that the student took a step on his own. The principle of sensory learning was limited to visual and audio stimuli created by the teacher by simulating manipulation or in geometry classes exceptionally, by geometric constructions using the e-application GeoGebra.

One of the basic principles of the reformed curriculum is the vertical and horizontal connection of program contents. In the ad-hoc creation of a curriculum adapted to extraordinary conditions, an effort has obviously been made to realize the principle of rationalization (economy and striving for optimal stimulus). It is partly achieved through the selection of content and procedures to be addressed. However, still, the selection process should ensure continuity in the curriculum and preserve the integrity of the subject structure. One of the essential methodological strategies that can contribute to the realization of vertical connection is that, in conditions when elections must be made, those who will be the basis for later curricular progress are favored. In the realized program units, it seems that the teachers had different priorities.

Content selection. In the reformed curriculum for the 5^{th} grade, a methodical instruction was given for students to get acquainted with the concept of reciprocal value of a fraction and a natural number, but that when dealing with a division operation it is necessary to generalize that division by a fraction is the same as multiplying by its reciprocal value. Thus, it is insisted that the operation of dividing fractions is an inverse multiplication operation, in accordance with the approach from the previous classes when the operation of dividing natural numbers is introduced as inverse multiplication. This approach is harmonized with the contents that are processed in the following levels of education: division of rational, real, and complex numbers, division of polynomials, etc. In the "pandemic" curriculum, this approach has not been consistently implemented. Different division techniques are considered: direct division of the numerator by numerator and denominator by denominator, geometric approach, etc. For example, the teacher has shown the division procedure by dividing the numerator by the numerator, and the denominator by the denominator. Although this is not wrong, this procedure does not lead students to take advantage of the fact that the product is a fraction and its reciprocal values 1 and confirm the connection of operations. As a result, advances in fractional calculus techniques can be expected but no understanding of the interconnectedness of operations. The apparent enrichment of teaching by showing different computational techniques in time-reduced teaching, in this case, diminished the possibility of achieving a conceptual connection of computational operations. Similarly, instead of several different techniques for solving systems of equations, a more rational choice would be to reduce the processing to a thorough treatment of Gauss's method of solving systems of linear equations, which will be important to students later. As a result of the fact that classes are shortened, unsystematic (ie arbitrary) reduction of mathematical content based on subjective assessments of teaching staff in any significant percentage can have the potential to demolish the "building", not achieving the connection of mathematical knowledge characterized by hierarchical structure and interdependence.

Task selection. In the older classes of primary and secondary schools, mathematics teachers mostly opted for a large number of quickly explained mathematical problems. On the other hand, teachers in the younger classes chose the tasks of primary and secondary level, which we assess as a rational and practically inevitable choice in the given circumstances. However, the result of such choices is the absence of challenging tasks, and the expected consequence is that, in the long run, students are demotivated, many and sleepy, due to the slow pace and lack of stimulation for an active relationship.

Communication. Slowed down, one-way verbal communication via a TV screen does not reflect the rhythm of math classes in regular conditions. It could have been the result of a desire to allow students to take notes in notebooks, but it may also be a consequence of the teachers 'lack of self-confidence in front of the camera. At all levels, teachers relied exclusively on prepared presentations. In the recorded lessons, the teacher who leads the class, as a rule, asked a series of questions to the imagined student, but he was also forced to answer those questions. Incidental comments: "Yes, you are right" or "Bravo", which preceded the answering, did not contribute to the impression that the classes were regular.

The effects of technological support of communication through visual supports of argumentation could be assessed from the point of view of the extent to which they helped to focus attention or facilitate understanding of the content. For example. in the lesson on "Similarity of a triangle", this function is realized Figure 2.

Figure 2 Screenshot with a golden section and a golden spiral from the TV lesson “Similarity of triangles” Слика 2 Снимак екрана са златним пресеком и златном спиралом из ТВ лекције “Сличност троуглова”

LEGEND OF THE LEFT FRAME: In the upper golden rectangle, it is written in Serbian in Cyrillic font, “Two quantities are in the GOLDEN RELATIONSHIP (GOLDEN SECTION) if the ratio of the larger quantity to the smaller one is equal to the ratio of the sum of those two quantities and the larger quantity”. In the last line it is written in Serbian, in Cyrillic font “DIVINE PROPORTION” (https://www.rts.rs/page/school/sr.html, 29^{th} May, 2020).

Planning. Planning was centralized. The teacher was obliged to follow the annual, monthly and weekly schedule of lessons that took place via the TV screen. Given the large number of approved textbooks (for each grade) that are conceptually diverse, with differently distributed teaching contents, it is clear that it is impossible that a concept supported by recorded contents was harmonized with the approach from all textbooks. Which textbook concept has been given priority for us at this time does not have to (although it could) be of primary importance. It remained a huge challenge for the teacher to harmonize concepts.

Social circumstances encouraged raising the level of digital competencies of teachers and "force-opportunity" forced system integration of mobile learning with institutional support for which, two years before the pandemic, Ristic and Mandic pledged as important factors to promote increasing efficiency and usability of information and communication resources in continue (Ristic & Mandic, 2018).

The context of the pandemic is a factor that has diminished the importance of current implicit and explicit theories of learning and development and trends in mathematics education. In relation to the discussion of educational paradigms and approaches to the curriculum, the realized teaching has the characteristics of a modernist approach and a closed curriculum (Bandjur, 1985; Bandjur, 1991). In that sense, Schultz's observation that the media, as well as the anthropological-psychological and socio-cultural conditions, are determining for the realization of educational goals is confirmed.

Conclusions

In this paper, we have considered the factors that determine the school curriculum and especially the mathematics curriculum. The effects of the social context changed by the COVID-19 pandemic on the accomplishment of the school curriculum and mathematics curriculum were discussed. It has been determined that the educational system of Serbia has managed to maintain the continuity of the teaching process and facilitated the achievement of educational goals with support on television as a medium of communication. The realization of teaching through TV lessons in some elements essentially changed the nature of teaching mathematics. The starting point of the educational apparatus was the intended "planned curriculum" that has the characteristics of a postmodernist paradigm. It has been shown that the variability between the planned and realized curriculum is noticeable. The identified changes can be interpreted as a result of the changed social context that freed the actors of the educational process from the strict implementation of the reformed curriculum actualized just before the pandemic. Specifically, the mathematics curriculum has been reduced, but the substance or mathematical contents have remained; changes have been registered in both the content and the methodological approach. The long-term gap between the formal and the modified mathematics curriculum could have unforeseeable consequences for now. These consequences can be especially important due to the nature of the subject, and above all the structural, interdependence, horizontal and vertical connections of mathematical knowledge.

In the conditions of the pandemic, the changed conditions required a narrowed number of actors in curriculum planning, and the processes of adjusting the school curriculum led to the transition to closed planning. It turned out that the emergency health situation brought time and other limitations in the functioning of the educational system and caused changes both in the general plan and within the subject. The realized curriculum has the characteristics of a closed curriculum, in which the actualization of modernist theories of education and scientific approach to the curriculum can be recognized. In particular, centralized planning and uniform realization of teaching, through TV lessons, are indicators of turning towards a modernist approach. There is no noticeable support for individualism in this approach. It should be borne in mind that we have dealt here with one but not the only type of mathematics teaching realized during the first wave of the pandemic. For the sake of a complete picture, it is necessary to analyze other types of work and consider the overall effects of teaching.

References

Banđur, V. (1985). A student in the teaching process. Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša [In Serbian].

Banđur, V. (1991). Modern teaching theory [In Serbian]. Naša škola, Banja Luka (3-4), 113-122.

Bartolini, B.M.G., Sun, X., & Ramploud, A. (2014). A dialogue between cultures about task design for primary school. In: C. Margolinas, (Ed.). The ICMI Study 22, Proceedings. (pp. 549-558). Retrieved from https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00834054 on 1.12.2020.

Bognar, L., & Matijević, M. (2002). Didactics. Zagreb: Školska knjiga [In Croatian].

Đorđević, J. (2003). Perceptions of the curriculum and its role in teaching. Pedagoška stvarnost (1-2), 31-45 [In Serbian].

Gundem, B. (1998). Understanding European Didactics: An overview. Oslo: Institute for Educational Research.

Jablonka, E. (2003). Mathematical Literacy. In: A.J. Bishop, M.A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F.K.S. Leung, (Eds.). Second International Handbook of Mathematics Education. (pp. 75-102). Dordrecht: Springer Nature. [Crossref]

Kaličanin, M. (1997). Planning and programming in education. Beograd: Agena [In Serbian].

Klafki, W., Schulz, W., von Cube, F., Möller, C., Winkel, R., & Blankertz, H. (1994). Didaktičke teorije / Didactic theories. Zagreb: Educa [In Croatian].

Kvaščev, R. (1977). Application of learning theory in the field of teaching and education. Beograd: Filozofski fakultet & Privredno-finansijski vodič [In Serbian].

Liotar, F. (1988). The postmodern state. Novi Sad: Bratstvo i jedinstvo [In Serbian].

Milinković, J. (2018). Historical Aspects of Math Curriculum Rebuilding. In: S. Yoshinori, & R. Vithal, (Ed.). School Mathematics Curriculum reforms: Challenges, Changes and Opportunities: The The ICMI Study 24 Study Conference, Proceedings of. (pp. 141-148). Tscukuba, Japan.

Milinković, J. (2015). From contemporary to conceivable mathematics education. In: J. Radišić, & N. Buđevac, (Ed.). Secondary analysis of research findings in light of new eduction policy. (pp. 106-117). Belgrade: Society of educational researchers.

Milinković, J. (2016). Essays on learning and teaching mathematics. Beograd: Učiteljski fakultet [In Serbian].

Milinković, J., Jablanović-Marušić, M., & Dabić-Boričić, M. (2017). Student achievement in mathematics: Main findings, trends and curriculum. In: M. Jablanović-Marušić, & a. et, (Eds.). TIMSS 2015 in Serbia: results of the international research of student achievement of the 4th grade of primary school in mathematics and natural sciences. (pp. 27-50). Beograd: Institut za pedagoška istraživanja. Retrieved from http://www.mpn.gov.rs/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/TIMSS-2015-Publikacija.pdf [In Serbian].

Milić, V. (1978). Sociološki metod. Beograd: Nolit.

Miljević, M. (2007). Methodology of scientific work. Pale: Univerzitet u Istočnom Sarajevu - Filozofski fakultet [In Serbian].

Palekčić, M. (2007). From curriculum to educational standards. In: V. Previšić, (Ed.). Curriculum, Theories, Methodology, Content, Structure. (pp. 35-101). Zagreb: Školska knjiga [In Croatian].

Poljak, V. (1984). Didactic Innovations and Pedagogical Reform of the School. Zagreb: Školske novine [In Croatian].

Ristić, M.R., & Mandić, D.P. (2018). Readiness of the education system for mobile learning. Sociološki pregled, 52(3), 1044-1071 [In Serbian]. [Crossref]

Smith, M.K. (2000). Curriculum theory and practise. In: The encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved from www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm.

Sriraman, B., & English, L. (2010). Theories of Mathematics Education: Seeking new frontiers. Haidelberg: Springer.

Stanic, G.A., & Kilpatrick, J. (2004). Mathematics curriculum reforming the United States: A historical perspective. Educ. Mat. Pesqui, 6(2), 11-27.

Tayler, R.W. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Teaching and learning program for the third grade of primary education and upbringing. (2019). Retrieved from www.mpn.gov.rs on 1.12.2020. [In Serbian]

Tsekeris, C., & Zeri, P. (2020). The coronavirus crisis as a world-historic event in the digital era. Sociološki pregled, 54(3), 498-517. [Crossref]

Vican, D., Bognar, L., & Previšić, V. (2007). Croatian national curriculum. In: V. Previšić, (Ed.). Curriculum, Theories, Methodology, Content, Structure. (pp. 157-204). Zagreb: Školska knjiga [In Croatian].

Vilotijević, M. (1997). Modern teaching theory. Beograd: Učiteljski fakultet [In Serbian].

Vilotijević, M. (2000). Didactics: Organization of Teaching. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva & Univerzitet u Beogradu-Učiteljski fakultet [In Serbian].

Vilotijević, M. (1999). Didactics 1: The subject of didactics. Beograd: Naučna knjiga & Učiteljski fakultet [In Serbian].

Vuletić, V.M. (2020). From the editor. Sociološki pregled, 54(3), 433-444. [Crossref]

17/08/202101/06/202120/07/202129/10/2021

×

Reference

*** (2019) Teaching and learning program for the third grade of primary education and upbringing. Retrieved on 1. 12. 2020. from www.mpn.gov.rs > uploads > 2019/06 > Prilog-III-razred. [In Serbian]

Banđur, V. (1985) A student in the teaching process. Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša, [In Serbian]

Banđur, V. (1991) Modern teaching theory. Naša škola, Banja Luka, br. 3-4, 113-122, [In Serbian]

Bartolini, B.M.G., Sun, X., Ramploud, A. (2014) A dialogue between cultures about task design for primary school. u: Margolinas C. [ur.] The ICMI Study 22, Proceedings, str. 549-558. Retrieved 1.12.2020. from http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00834054

Jablonka, E. (2003) Mathematical Literacy. u: Bishop Alan J., Clements M.A., Keitel Christine, Kilpatrick Jeremy, Leung Frederick K.S. [ur.] Second International Handbook of Mathematics Education, Dordrecht: Springer Nature, str. 75-102

Kaličanin, M. (1997) Planning and programming in education. Beograd: Agena, [In Serbian]

Klafki, W., Schulz, W., von Cube, F., Möller, C., Winkel, R., Blankertz, H. (1994) Didaktičke teorije / Didactic theories. Zagreb: Educa, [In Croatian]

Kvaščev, R. (1977) Application of learning theory in the field of teaching and education. Beograd: Filozofski fakultet, [In Serbian]

Liotar, F. (1988) The postmodern state. Novi Sad: Bratstvo i jedinstvo, [In Serbian]

Milinković, J. (2018) Historical Aspects of Math Curriculum Rebuilding. u: Yoshinori Sh., Vithal R. [ur.] School Mathematics Curriculum reforms: Challenges, Changes and Opportunities: The The ICMI Study 24 Study Conference, Proceedings of, Tscukuba, Japan, 141-148

Milinković, J. (2015) From contemporary to conceivable mathematics education. u: Radišić J., Buđevac N. [ur.] Secondary analysis of research findings in light of new eduction policy, Belgrade: Society of educational researchers, 106-117

Milinković, J. (2016) Essays on learning and teaching mathematics. Beograd: Učiteljski fakultet, [In Serbian]

Milinković, J., Jablanović-Marušić, M., Dabić-Boričić, M. (2017) Student achievement in mathematics: Main findings, trends and curriculum. u: Jablanović-Marušić M., et al. [ur.] TIMSS 2015 in Serbia: results of the international research of student achievement of the 4th grade of primary school in mathematics and natural sciences, Beograd: Institut za pedagoška istraživanja, (27-50). Available at: http://www.mpn.gov.rs/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/TIMSS-2015-Publikacija.pdf [In Serbian]

Smith, M.K. (2000) Curriculum theory and practise. u: The encyclopedia of informal education, www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm

Sriraman, B., English, L., eds. (2010) Theories of Mathematics Education: Seeking new frontiers. Haidelberg: Springer

Stanic, G.A., Kilpatrick, J. (2004) Mathematics curriculum reforming the United States: A historical perspective. Educ. Mat. Pesqui, 6(2), 11-27. Retrieved from https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/emp/article/viewFile/4686/3255

Tayler, R.W. (1949) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Tsekeris, C., Zeri, P. (2020) The coronavirus crisis as a world-historic event in the digital era. Sociološki pregled, vol. 54, br. 3, str. 498-517

Vican, D., Bognar, L., Previšić, V. (2007) Hrvatski nacionalni kurikulum / Croatian national curriculum. u: Previšić V. [ur.] Kurikulum, teorije - metodologija - sadržaj - struktura / Curriculum, Theories, Methodology, Content, Structure, Zagreb: Školska knjiga, str. 157-204, [In Croatian]

Vilotijević, M. (1997) Modern teaching theory. Beograd: Učiteljski fakultet, [In Serbian]

Vilotijević, M. (1999) Didactics 1: The subject of didactics. Beograd: Naučna knjiga, [In Serbian]

Vilotijević, M. (2000) Didactics: Organization of Teaching. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva, [In Serbian]

Vuletić, V.M. (2020) From the editor. Sociološki pregled, vol. 54, br. 3, str. 433-444

O članku

jezik rada: srpski, engleski vrsta rada: izvorni naučni članak DOI: 10.5937/socpreg55-32551 primljen: 01.06.2021. revidiran: 20.07.2021. prihvaćen: 17.08.2021. objavljen u SCIndeksu: 29.10.2021.
metod recenzije: dvostruko anoniman