This study examined the effectiveness of a curriculum-oriented reform implemented in a mathematics teacher qualification course under China's Mathematics Curriculum Standards for Compulsory Education (2022 Edition). The reform aimed to strengthen curriculum literacy and teaching self-efficacy by integrating curriculum standards into theoretical instruction and teaching practice. A mixed-methods design was employed involving 58 pre-service mathematics teachers at a local normal university in China. Quantitative data were collected through pre- and post-course questionnaires measuring curriculum literacy and teaching self-efficacy, while qualitative data were gathered from reflective journals, lesson plans, and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative findings indicated statistically significant improvements in participants’ curriculum literacy (particularly standards-based instructional design competence) and teaching self-efficacy following the intervention. Qualitative findings further revealed that standards-based lesson planning, microteaching, and reflective practice promoted a deeper integration of curriculum theory and classroom practice. Participants gradually shifted from examination-oriented learning toward curriculum-oriented instructional thinking. However, they also reported challenges in interpreting core mathematical competencies and applying curriculum standards in authentic teaching contexts. The findings suggest that teacher qualification courses should place greater emphasis on curriculum literacy and practice-oriented teacher education rather than focusing primarily on examination preparation.

Yueping Su, Xu Xiao, Gen Yi. From Examination-oriented Learning to Curriculum-oriented Teaching: Evaluating a Curriculum Reform in Mathematics Teacher Education through a Mixed-methods Study. Frontiers in Educational Research (2026), Vol. 9, Issue 9: 1-11. https://doi.org/10.25236/FER.2026.090901.

[1] Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2022). Mathematics curriculum standards for compulsory education (2022 edition). Beijing Normal University Press.

[2] Zhang, W., & Li, Y. (2023). Curriculum reform and teacher education in China: Challenges and opportunities under the new curriculum standards. Journal of Mathematics Education, 32(4), 45–58.

[3] Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. Bloomsbury.

[4] Tran, D., & Reid O’Connor, B. (2023). Teacher curriculum competence: How teachers act in curriculum making. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 56(1), 1–16.

[5] Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.

[6] Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.

[7]Gulek, J. C. (2003). Preparing for high-stakes testing. Theory into Practice, 42(1), 42–50.

[8]Zhang, Y., Alias, A., & Nasri, N. M. (2026). More than just adding subjects: Unpacking secondary mathematics teachers' challenges in implementing interdisciplinary thematic learning under China's 2022 curriculum reform. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 15(2). 

[9] Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300–314.

[10] Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college-and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 89–99. 

[11]Fernandez, C., & Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson study: A Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and learning. Routledge.

[12] Medina, J. B., Buan, A. T., Perocho, R. E., & Luib, J. R. (2025). Retrospective analysis of lesson planning in microteaching lesson study among mathematics preservice teachers. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 25(1).

[13] Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

[14] Beauchamp, C., & Thomas, L. (2009). Understanding teacher identity: An overview of issues in the literature and implications for teacher education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(2), 175–189. 

[15] Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education,17(7), 783–805.

[16] Makhubele, Y. E., & Tshabalala, P. (2024). An investigation of high school preservice teachers’ self-efficacy in teaching mathematics. Education Sciences, 14(11), 1262. 

[17] Biesta, G. (2015). What is education for? On good education, teacher judgement, and educational professionalism. European Journal of Education, 50(1), 75–87. 

[18] Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805.

[19] Song,C.G.,&Lee,K.H.(2024).How teachers’ reading of competency-oriented national mathematics curriculum documents relates to their sense-making of reform messages. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 20(7), em2465.