International Cooperation on theDevelopment of the Regional Mathematics
Curriculum Standards: The Case of Southeast Asia• Sharing the challenges and issues encountered• Contributions of collaborating agents• Lessons learned• Concluding remarks

Southeast Asia Minister of Education
Organisation (SEAMEO), 1965
11 Member Countries (2010)

SEAMEO Secretariat

SEAMEO Education Agenda (20152035) with 7 priority Areas:
For improved quality education in
the region
Priority # 7:
Adapting a 21st Century Curriculum
for the region

Aim to pursue a radical reform
through systematic analysis ofknowledge, skills and values byintegrating regional curriculum
standards

RECSAM
Project SEA-BES:CCRLS
in mathematics
and science(2015-2017)

Who were the contributing agents?
SEAMEO
Secretariat• Settingdirections andprojectapproval• RECSAM Team• Consultant• Coordinating andWriting• Consultant:
Review, critiques,& guidance,suggestions

30 Malaysian
Teachers &Educators• Comparison andmapping, P I• Drafted initialStandards, P II

11 Curriculum
Specialist from 11
SEAMEO countries• Sharing of
national
curriculum &reform at P I• Review of Draft
Document, P III• 8 InternationalExperts• 16 APEC –LS Network• 7 Japanese Experts• Review & Critiques of Drafts
in P III- Collaborating agents contributed at different phases, I, II or III.
- Worked mainly during local workshops, regional workshops and one
international workshop in Tsukuba ( organized by the consultant)Challenges & Issues
Phase 1: Comparison of CurriculumStandards and Mapping for
Minimum Essentials• Use only 6 curriculum standards translated toEnglish (Mal, Brunei, Sin, Phi, Camb, Thai)• Math terminologies (MAL) were used to findintersections as the minimum contentneeded.
• Issues: -No obvious intersection-Missing terms (ordinal, cardinal)-No well distinguished terms used
-Topics in different domain (money)- Approach of teaching (proving Vscalculation & measurement)- Topics taught at different Grade

Mapping in the case of whole numbers forcomparison of curriculums
Consultant:• Mapping not appropriate• Provide guidance & explanation• Change the minimum essentials to benchmark against
the 21st century curriculum standards of advancecountries• Change grading to key stage 1,2 & 3

Challenges & Issues
Phase 2: Setting Format for Writing
the Standards under Benchmarking
Framework• Drafting of standards
Concerns: - Use minimum essentials of the21scentury curriculum- Terminologies not well defined-Set same domain name for 3 keystages- No obvious process skills-Bias in content selection
and description of standards- Limited experience ofcollaborators

Consultant and RECSAM team:• Major review to consider terminologies
in curricula of advance countries• Appropriate way of writing the standards
to ensure process skills were embedded• Strands were used• Careful consideration to distinguishconceptual differences of terminologies

Challenges & Issues
Phase 3: Setting the Framework &Finalising the Document

I-experts & J-experts:-clarify further the aims, objectives, rolesand contents of standards.

• Consolidate the draft through feedbackof questionnaire from all specialist of
every member country• Through discussion in a final meeting
Concerns: - specialists were confident oncomparison but reserve
comments on their own national
curriculum- Difficult to find a middle path for
integration

Consultant and RECSAM team:• Rewrite the standards under theagreement of the meeting in Tsukuba• Specialist provide positive feedback• APEC experts review & provided thecritiques for improvement• Process-humanity strand were added• CCRLS framework was produced.

Resolving the challenges and Issues• Discourse during localand regional meetings• Narratives• Critiques• References on curriculum
document• Guidance & showing throughexamples• No formal capacity building but
a on-job learning, particularly
from the consultant

SEABES CCRLS framework for Mathematics(Mangao, Ahamad, Isoda, 2017; Gan, Isoda & Teh, 2021 revised)Lessons Learned
1. Mapping was not appropriately applied.
Core agents from member countries provide their shareable terminology for the region.

2. Sharing the reform issues are necessary to establish the format of writingeg. emphasis of mathematical value and attitude, and mathematical thinking skills
3. Participating teachers require specific training, broad curriculum knowledge andexperience to write curriculum standards
4. Insufficient experience of collaborators gave rise to difficulty in interpreting terminologies
for the curriculum
5. Teachers are curriculum user but not familiar with terminology and is the major variable todescribe national curriculum

Lessons Learned
Other technical aspects:
6. Project should accompanied with explicit objectives , methods and workable
implementation plan by the stakeholders
The targeted audience/community of users need to be considered.
7. A project consultant and curriculum experts are crucially needed to support theproject
8. Involvement of curriculum personnel with mandated authority from member
countries are most crucial. Determine the degree of adoption, integration andreference of the curriculum standards for their national curriculum.

Lessons LearnedChallenges provide new ways forward:
9. To promote wider usage of the curriculum standards,
teachers’ guidebook have been develop based on theStandards for classroom teaching(2 out of 3 books have been published).
10. Revision of the Standards

11. Use of the Standards for teacher training in member
countries
12. SEAMEO QITEP made use of CCRLS in Mathematics for
MARWA project involving Diagnostic Assessment

Conclusion• Challenges and issues can be avoided:- by setting clear work process,- methods,- direct support of knowledgeable curriculum
specialists from all member countries• Lessons learned - as reference curriculum
development of similar nature.