Main Article Content


This comparative study analyzed the similarities and differences in the mathematical communication used by teachers and primary school students in Japanese, Lao, and Thai mathematics classrooms. It adopted a qualitative research design, and the targets were teachers and students in Grades 1 - 6 at a selected school in each of the three countries. The data were collected from one classroom at each grade level from the three schools, so eighteen classrooms were involved in the study. The research tools included video recorders, photo cameras, and a field notes form. The data were analyzed by employing the analytical descriptive method based on Pirie's conceptual framework of the means of mathematical communication (1998). The findings revealed that the means of mathematical communication in the three countries were similar in their use of ordinary, mathematical, verbal, and symbolic language—differences in the means of mathematical communication related to how varied the learning materials were. The Japanese classrooms used the most varied means of mathematical communication, demonstrating all six means, while the Thai classrooms used only 5, and the Lao PDR classrooms used only 4. The Japanese classrooms were shown to be focused on the students' diverse self-solution concepts, while some of the Thai and Lao PDR classrooms were based on question-answer interactions between the teachers and students.


Comparative Study Japan Lao PDR Means of Mathematical Communication Thailand

Article Details

How to Cite
Ya-amphan, D., Thinwiangthong, S., & Sythong, P. (2024). Comparative study of means of mathematical communication in Japan, Laos, and Thailand. Journal on Mathematics Education, 15(1), 99–114.


  1. Adiyia, M., & Ashton, W. (2017). Comparative research. Canada: Rural Development Institute, Brandon University.
  2. Allik, J., Realo, A., Mottus, R., Borkenau, P., Kuppens, P., & Hrebickova, M. (2010). How people see others is different from how people see themselves: a replicable pattern across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(5), 870-882.
  3. Ansarian, L., & Mohammadi, F. S. (2018). Problem-based learning in action: review of empirical studies. Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum, 26(T), 13-32.
  4. Arani., M. R. S. (2016). An examination of oral and literal teaching traditions through a comparative analysis of mathematics lessons in Iran and Japan. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 5(3), 196 – 211.
  5. Armiati, Fauzan, A., Harisman, Y., & Sya’bani, F. (2022). Local instructional theory of probability topics based on realistic mathematics education for eight-grade students. Journal on Mathematics Education, 13(4), 703-722.
  6. Azarian, R. (2011). Potentials and limitations of comparative method in social science. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(4), 113-125.;_April_2011/15.pdf
  7. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(1), 139-148.
  8. Bukhari, H. A. S. (2011). What is comparative study.
  9. Cheah, U. H. (2007). Conceptualizing a framework for mathematics communication in Malaysian primary schools. Paper presented at the Third APEC-Tsukuba International Conference Innovation of Classroom Teaching and Learning through Lesson Study III - Focusing on Mathematical Communication, CRICED, University of Tsukuba.
  10. Chiangkool, W. (2016). The status of Thai education, years 2014-2015: How to reform Thai education to keep pace with the world in the 21st century. Bangkok: Pimdee Printing. [in Thai]
  11. David, M. M., & Tomaz, V. S. (2012). The role of visual representations for structuring classroom mathematical activity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(3), 413–431.
  12. Drobni, S., Beham, B., & Prag, P. (2010). Good job, good life? working conditions and quality of life in Europe. Social Indicators Research, 99(2), 205-225.
  13. Emori, H. (1993). The mechanism of communication in learning mathematics. In I. Hirabayashi, N. Nohda, K. Shigematsu, & F.-L. Lin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME17). (Vol. 2, pp. 230-237), Tsukuba, Japan: University of Tsukuba.
  14. Emori, H. (1997). Mathematics communication. In T. Katsuro (Ed.), Rethinking Lesson Organization in School Mathematics. (pp. 44-60). Japan: Japan Society of Mathematics Education.
  15. Emori, H. (2005). The workshop for young mathematics educations in Thailand 2005 building up the research agenda for the next 10 year, 2006 -2015. Khon Kean: Khon Kean University.
  16. Goldhaber, D., Krieg, J. M., & Theobald, R. (2020). Exploring the impact of student teaching apprenticeships on student achievement and mentor teachers. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(2), 213-234.
  17. Hall, R. (2000). Videorecording as theory. In A. E. Kelly, & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education. (pp. 647-664). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  18. Hamdani. (2011). Strategi belajar mengajar. Bandung: CV. Pustaka Setia.
  19. Hantrais, L. (1995). Comparative research methods. Social Research Update, 13(Summer 1995).
  20. Inpanya, T., Thinwiangthong, S., Ban Har, Y., & Inprasitha, M. (2015). Characteristics of mathematical communication in primary classrooms in Lao PDR. Paper presented at the 7th ICMI-East Asia Regional Conference on Mathematics Education (EARCOME 7). Waterfront Hotel, Cebu City, Philippines.
  21. Inprasitha, M. (2014). Processes of problem solving in school mathematics. Khon Kaen: Pen Printing. [in Thai]
  22. Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (IPTST). (2019). PISA 2018 result: summary report. Bangkok: IPST. [in Thai]
  23. Isoda, M. (2010). Lesson study: problem solving approaches in mathematics education as a Japanese experience. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8(2010), 17–27.
  24. Isoda, M., & Inprasitha, M. (2007). The Third APEC-Tsukuba International Conference Innovation of Classroom Teaching and Learning through Lesson Study III - Focusing on Mathematical Communication (First Announcement), CRICED, University of Tsukuba.
  25. Kaewdaeng, R. (1999). Thai education reform. Bangkok: Matichon. [in Thai]
  26. Lesh, R., & Lehrer, R. (2000). Iterative Refinement Cycles for Videotape Analyses of Conceptual Change. In A. E. Kelly, & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education. (pp. 665-708). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  27. Lesh, R., Post, T., & Behr, M. (1987). Representations and translations among representations in mathematics learning and problem solving. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of Representations in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics. (pp. 33-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  28. Ministry of Education and Sport, Lao PDR. (2013). Final report of the education sector development plan (ESDP) (2011–2015). Vientiane, Lao PDR: Ministry of Education and Sport.
  29. Ministry of Education and Sport, Lao PDR. (2015). Student learning outcomes in primary education in Lao PDR. Vientiane, Lao PDR: Ministry of Education and Sport.
  30. Ministry of Education and Sport, Lao PDR. (2020). Education and sports sector development plan 2021-2025. Vientiane, Lao PDR: Ministry of Education and Sport.
  31. Nampeng, C. (2020). Students’ representation in using instructional material in mathematics classroom. Master Thesis in Mathematics Education, Graduate School, Khon Kaen University.
  32. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Virginia: NCTM, Inc.
  33. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2018). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): what students know and can do. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  34. Phanich, W. (2014). Learning creation to 21st century. Nakorn Patom: S. Charern Printing. [in Thai]
  35. Pirie, S. (1998). Crossing the gulf between thought and symbol: language as (slippery) stepping-stones. In H. Steinbring, M. Bartolini Bussi and A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Language and Communication in the Mathematics Classroom. Reston, VA: NCTM, pp. 7-29.
  36. Romiszowski, A. J. (1986). Developing auto-instructional materials from programmed texts to CAL and interactive video. London and New York: Routledge.
  37. Ryve, A., Nilsson, P., & Pettersson, K. (2013). Analyzing effective communication in mathematics group work: the role of visual mediators and technical terms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(3), 497-514.
  38. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press.
  39. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  40. Shadiq, F., & Lukman. (2010). Mathematics curriculum contents analysis: country report Lao PDR.
  41. Shanmugam, S. K. S., Chinnappan, M., & Leong, K. (2020). Action research in examining the enquiry approach of lesson study in mathematics. Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 28(3), 1675 - 1693.
  42. Sierpinska, A. (1998). Three epistemologies, three views of classroom communication: constructivism, sociocultural approaches, interactionism. In H. Steinbring, A. Sierpinska, & M. G. Bartolini-Bussi (Eds.), Language and Communication in the Mathematics Classroom. (pp. 30-62). Reston, VA.: NCTM.
  43. Smieskova, E. (2017). Communication students' skills as a tool of development creativity and motivation in geometry. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(1), 31–35.
  44. Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.
  45. Takahashi, A. (2006). Characteristics of Japanese mathematics lesson. Tsukuba Journal of Educational Study in Mathematics, 25(special issue), 37-44.
  46. Thinwiangthong, S., Inprasitha, M., & Loipha, S. (2012). Adaptation of lesson study and open approach for sustainable development of students’ mathematical learning process. Psychology, 3(10), 906-911.
  47. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. (2019). TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science. MA: Boston College.
  48. Uyen, B. P., Tong, D. H., & Tram, N. T. B. (2021). Developing mathematical communication skills for students in Grade 8 in teaching congruent triangle topics. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(3), 1287-1302.
  49. Wiriyaudomsatean, T., & Thinwiangthong, S. (2019). Students’ words in mathematical communication in classroom using lesson study and open approach. Journal of Physics: Conf. Series, 1340, 012090.
  50. Wood, T. (1998). Alternative patterns of communication in mathematics classroom: funneling or focusing?. In H. Steinbring, A. Sierpinska, & M. G. Bartolini-Bussi (Eds.), Language and Communication in the Mathematics Classroom. (pp. 167-178). Reston, VA.: NCTM.