Developing Prospective Teachers’ Methodological Competency-Based Cognitive Level By Ensuring Cross-Topic Coherence In The Process Of Teaching Mathematics In Primary Education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37547/pedagogics-crjp-07-02-27Keywords:
Primary mathematics education, cross-topic coherence, curriculum coherenceAbstract
Primary mathematics learning becomes durable when pupils recognize how ideas connect across topics such as number, measurement, geometry, and early algebra. However, in many classrooms and in teacher preparation, mathematical content is still taught as a sequence of isolated units, which encourages short-term procedures rather than conceptual structures. This article argues that cross-topic coherence—the deliberate alignment of concepts, representations, tasks, and assessments across themes—can serve as a powerful mechanism for developing prospective teachers’ methodological competence at a competency-based cognitive level. Using a design-based methodological approach, the study synthesizes research on pedagogical content knowledge, mathematical knowledge for teaching, and curriculum coherence to construct a practical framework for teacher education. The proposed framework operationalizes coherence through curriculum mapping, “concept bridges” between topics, representational consistency, and coherence-oriented formative assessment. Results are presented as a structured model describing how coherence work (planning, teaching moves, diagnostic assessment, and reflection) supports prospective teachers in moving from reproductive lesson planning toward analytic and design-oriented instructional decision-making. The discussion explains why coherence is not an “extra” but a core methodological competence that strengthens conceptual understanding, cognitive demand, and students’ mathematical proficiency. Implications are offered for coursework, microteaching, and practicum supervision in primary teacher education.
Downloads
References
Shulman L.S. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching // Educational Researcher. — 1986. — Vol. 15, No. 2. — P. 4–14. — DOI: 10.3102/0013189X015002004.
Ball D.L., Thames M.H., Phelps G. Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? // Journal of Teacher Education. — 2008. — Vol. 59, No. 5. — P. 389–407. — DOI: 10.1177/0022487108324554.
Bruner J.S. The Process of Education: Revised Edition. — Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977. — 97 p.
Vygotsky L.S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. — Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978. — ISBN 0674576292.
National Research Council. Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics. — Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2001. — DOI: 10.17226/9822.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. — Reston, VA: NCTM, 2000. — 402 p. — ISBN 978-0-87353-480-2.
Clements D.H., Sarama J. Learning and Teaching Early Math: The Learning Trajectories Approach. — New York: Routledge, 2009. — DOI: 10.4324/9780203883389.
Daro P. Learning Trajectories in Mathematics: A Foundation for Standards, Curriculum, Assessment, and Instruction. — 2011. — (ERIC: ED519792).
Schmidt W.H., Houang R., Cogan L. A coherent curriculum: The case of mathematics // American Educator. — 2002. — Vol. 26, No. 2. — P. 10–26, 47.
Schmidt W.H., Houang R. Curricular coherence and the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics // Educational Researcher. — 2012. — (Article page). — DOI: 10.3102/0013189X12464517.
Schmidt W.H., Wang H.C., McKnight C.C. Curriculum coherence: An examination of U.S. mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective // Journal of Curriculum Studies. — 2005. — DOI: 10.1080/0022027042000294682.
Schoenfeld A.H. The Teaching for Robust Understanding (TRU) Framework. — Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, 2015. — (Working paper).
Schoenfeld A.H., the Teaching for Robust Understanding Project. An Introduction to the Teaching for Robust Understanding (TRU) Framework. — Berkeley, CA: Graduate School of Education, 2016.
OECD. Curriculum Overload: A Way Forward. — Paris: OECD Publishing, 2020.
Carpenter T.P., Fennema E., Franke M.L., Levi L., Empson S.B. Children’s Mathematics: Cognitively Guided Instruction. — Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1999.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. — Washington, DC, 2010.
Delgado C., Sekeres D. Learning progressions, learning trajectories, and equity // In: Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences. — 2012. — P. 204–211.
Koponen M., Pehkonen E. How education affects mathematics teachers’ knowledge: Unpacking selected aspects of teacher knowledge // European Journal of Mathematics and Science Education (PDF source). — 2017.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Eshkobilova Guldona

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright of their manuscripts, and all Open Access articles are disseminated under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY), which licenses unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is appropriately cited. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations.
