ISSN: 2226-6348
Open access
China’s 2022 compulsory education curriculum reform mandates that no less than 10% of class hours be allocated to interdisciplinary thematic learning, marking a shift from subject-centered to competency-oriented education. However, empirical research on how secondary mathematics teachers perceive and struggle with this policy remains scarce, particularly under China’s examination-oriented system. Adopting a qualitative semi-structured interview approach, this study investigates the practical dilemmas of three junior secondary mathematics teachers in Zhejiang Province with 3, 8, and 15 years of experience. Grounded in an integrated theoretical framework (Beane, 1997; Guskey, 2002; Fullan, 2007), the research identifies five core themes. First, teachers face conceptual ambiguity between genuine interdisciplinary integration and superficial subject patching. Second, they express widespread pedagogical anxiety, especially regarding assessment of interdisciplinary outcomes. Third, they are restricted by structural constraints including time scarcity, fragmented schedules, resource shortages, and high-stakes examination pressure. Fourth, they suffer from collaborative isolation and inadequate leadership support. Fifth, they adopt pragmatic coping strategies that represent compromised compliance rather than authentic implementation. The results reveal that without systemic reform of the high-stakes examination system, even teachers with clear conceptual awareness cannot promote high-quality interdisciplinary instruction. This study enriches empirical literature on the policy-practice gap in China’s mathematics curriculum reform, provides implications for teacher professional development and assessment reform, and offers references for policymakers and international researchers engaged in curriculum integration.
Bairy, S., & Inamdar, N. (2026). Enhancing middle school mathematics through interdisciplinary integration: A 21st-century approach. SN Social Sciences, 6(1), 1-28. DOI: 10.1007/s44217-025-00877-w
Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. Teachers College Press.
Berry, A., Carpendale, J., & Mulhall, P. (2025). Understanding secondary inservice teachers‘ perceptions and practices of implementing integrated STEM education. Education Sciences, 15(2), 255. DOI: 10.3390/educsci15020255
Bramley, R. J., Little, S., & Bishop, J. (2025). ‘One person can’t deliver it‘: Exploring teachers’ agency and stance in relation to integrating an interdisciplinary subject in UK primary and secondary schools. Cogent Education, 12(1), 2466302. DOI: 10.1080/2331186x.2025.2466302
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Ellebæk, J. J., Larsen, D. M., & Auning, C. (2026). Teachers‘ challenges in teaching integrated STEM: In the light of PCK as an analytical lens. LUMAT. DOI: 10.31129/LUMAT.12.4.2402
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change(4th ed.). Teachers College Press.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381-391.
Just, J., & Siller, H.-S. (2022). The role of mathematics in STEM secondary classrooms: A systematic literature review. Education Sciences, 12(9), 629. DOI: 10.3390/educsci12090629
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Maass, K., Geiger, V., Ariza, M. R., & Goos, M. (2019). The role of mathematics in interdisciplinary STEM education. ZDM Mathematics Education, 51, 869-884. DOI: 10.1007/s11858-019-01100-5
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Ministry of Education of the People‘s Republic of China. (2022). Compulsory education curriculum plan (2022 edition). Beijing Normal University Press.
Spreitzer, C., Kollosche, D., & Krainer, K. (2025). Mathematical activities in integrated STEM lessons. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME14).
Stentoft, D. (2017). From saying to doing interdisciplinary learning: Is problem-based learning the answer? Active Learning in Higher Education, 18(1), 51-61. DOI: 10.1177/1469787417693510
Venville, G., Rennie, L. J., & Wallace, J. (2012). Curriculum integration: Challenging the assumption of school science as powerful knowledge. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 737-749). Springer.
Zhang, D., Li, S., & Tang, R. (2004). The two basics: Mathematics teaching and learning in Mainland China. In L. Fan et al. (Eds.), How Chinese learn mathematics: Perspectives from insiders (pp. 189-207). World Scientific.
Zhang, Q., Ning, R., Xu, X., & Tang, X. (2025). Implementing big ideas in mathematics education: Insights from China‘s mathematics curriculum reform. Curriculum Perspectives. DOI: 10.1007/s41297-025-00317-7
Zhu, L., & Gao, J. (2025). The value, dilemma and solution of interdisciplinary thematic learning in the new curriculum plan of compulsory education. Curriculum, Teaching Material and Method, 45(2), 55-61.
Yanting, Z., 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), 596-611.
Copyright: © 2026 The Author(s)
Published by HRMARS (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode