Prospective Teachers’ Views on Mathematics Education Curriculum Transformation in Preschool in Latvia

Abstract

The recent reform of the preschool curriculum in Latvia signifies a paradigm shift with the objective of fostering holistic skill development. The success of this implementation is largely attributed to the pivotal role played by teacher perspectives. The present study investigates the views of pre-service early childhood teachers in Latvia on the transformation of the preschool mathematics education curriculum following the reform in 2019. A descriptive research design was employed, involving 54 focus group discussions with 271 part-time students from the University of Latvia and its regional branches. During the focus group discussions, participants analyzed and compared the changes in aims, content, assessment practices, and instructional strategies in mathematics education at the preschool level across mathematics curricula. The findings indicate an increasing appreciation for clarity in instruction, age-appropriate design, and the shift towards interactive, skills-based strategies. While prospective teachers generally support the aim of the reform, there are evident gaps in their understanding of formative assessment, integration of parental involvement, and promotion of higher-order thinking and real-life problem-solving. The study emphasizes the significance of enhancing teacher training, curriculum design, and educational policy to facilitate effective and meaningful implementation of the revised mathematics curriculum in preschool contexts.

1. Introduction

Mathematics education in early childhood is pivotal for children’s cognitive development and lays the groundwork for future academic success (Clements & Sarama, 2020). Early mathematical experiences have been shown to be strong predictors of later academic achievement, even surpassing the predictive value of early reading skills in forecasting school performance (ten Braak et al., 2022; Duncan et al., 2007; Björklund et al., 2020).

In Latvia, a comprehensive reform of the preschool education curriculum was initiated in 2019 with the aim of aligning it with 21st-century learning objectives (Ministry of Education and Science of Latvia, 2019). The recently published guidelines represent a paradigm shift towards a competence-based, child-centered model that emphasizes problem-solving and critical thinking through playful, inquiry-based activities.

Despite the wealth of global research, emphasizing the pivotal role of effective early mathematics education, there is a paucity of knowledge surrounding how pre-service teachers interpret and respond to curriculum modifications. Teachers’ views, which reflect their beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions, are crucial to the success of reforms, especially in early education where pedagogical flexibility and responsiveness are essential.

Therefore, the aim of this article is to explore the views of pre-service early childhood prospective teachers in Latvia regarding the transformation of the mathematics education curriculum at the preschool level. It analyzes prospective teachers’ views on the aim of mathematics education, changes in teaching and learning content, the structure of mathematical content, assessment practices, and instructional strategies within both the pre-reform and post-reform curricula. To achieve the aim of the study, the following research questions were raised:

Q1 How do prospective teachers view the aim, content, assessment, and teaching/learning process of mathematics education in the mathematics curricula?

Q2 What are the views of prospective teachers on the differences between the pre-reform and post-reform mathematics curricula?

Q3 How do prospective teachers view the preparedness and relevance of the curriculum to their future teaching practice?

1.1. Theoretical Background: Literature Review

1.1.1. The Significance of Early Mathematics Education

The development of foundational skills, such as number sense, spatial reasoning, and pattern recognition, which occurs during early childhood, contributes significantly to children’s logical thinking and problem-solving abilities (Whitehead & Hawes, 2023; Ginsburg et al., 2008). It is widely recognized that problem solving constitutes a critical component of early mathematical learning. Problem solving implies tasks that require children to explore, formulate predictions, test hypotheses, and reflect on outcomes, frequently in the context of play or real-life scenarios (Ginsburg et al., 2008). The provision of high-quality mathematics instruction in preschool has been shown to enhance competence and to foster positive attitudes towards the subject, thereby mitigating the risk of mathematics anxiety in later educational stages (Berkowitz et al., 2015). For instance, one randomized study reported that rich preschool numeracy play predicted more positive dispositions toward mathematics by age 10 (Clerkin & Gilligan, 2018). These findings underscore the consensus in recent research that nurturing early math proficiency can strengthen children’s confidence and problem-solving skills long-term, establishing a solid foundation for future learning in mathematics and beyond.

International education frameworks have echoed research insights, advocating for modernized early childhood curricula that emphasize 21st-century competencies, including critical thinking and problem-solving skills, within the context of math learning (Björklund et al., 2020). Policy guidance from organizations like the OECD and UNESCO calls for curricula that go beyond rote learning to engage children in inquiry-based, playful exploration of concepts (OECD, 2018; UNESCO, 2015). Recent international frameworks, including the OECD’s (2024) An Evolution of Mathematics Curriculum, underscore the evolution of curricula to incorporate 21st-century competencies. These competencies encompass critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and data literacy. Such frameworks encourage educators to integrate mathematics into everyday contexts and play, helping children make meaningful connections and develop transversal skills from an early age.

The integration of mathematics with real-life contexts is a pivotal component in the pedagogy of early mathematical education. It has been demonstrated that real-life contexts can enhance engagement and comprehension, thereby facilitating the application of abstract ideas in meaningful ways (Berkowitz et al., 2015; Clerkin & Gilligan, 2018). Inquiry-based approaches advocate the integration of mathematics into everyday activities, such as cooking, shopping, or construction, with a view to fostering both skills and confidence. This integration is of particular importance in curriculum reforms that emphasize relevance and transversal skills (Vigule & Helmane, 2023).

Instructional practices in early childhood mathematics have evolved to emphasize active, play-based, and exploratory learning. This shift involves the integration of hands-on manipulatives, storytelling, and real-world problems to facilitate understanding (Helm & Katz, 2016). Play-based learning constitutes a pivotal facet within the domain of early childhood mathematics education. The approach entails the utilization of structured play as a medium for the creation of meaningful mathematical experiences. This pedagogical strategy has the potential to facilitate children’s comprehension and engagement with mathematical concepts. The utilization of hands-on manipulatives has been identified as a prevalent pedagogical strategy in facilitating comprehension. The utilization of these tools has been demonstrated to facilitate the conceptualization and physical manipulation of mathematical concepts by children, thereby rendering abstract ideas more concrete (Baroody et al., 2019). The integration of storytelling with play activities facilitates children’s exploration of mathematical concepts in a natural and enjoyable manner. This pedagogical approach has been demonstrated to facilitate the development of mathematical thinking and problem-solving skills (Wager & Parks, 2016).

The learning of mathematics by children is contingent on the content and pedagogical knowledge of educators, as well as their capacity to accurately evaluate and respond to children’s capacities and needs (Clements & Sarama, 2009; Cohrssen et al., 2013; Knaus, 2017). In the absence of an accurate understanding of children’s mathematical understanding and skills, across domains and relative to typical developmental progressions of learning, pedagogical practices are likely to be misaligned with the developmental needs of the children (Grimmond et al., 2022). When teachers possess the requisite tools to assess learning, measures that are practical and can be implemented in naturalistic, play-based settings, the process of assessment can be effectively embedded in pedagogy (McLachlan et al., 2013). Within the domain of mathematics education, educators require substantiated evidence of children’s learning progress to tailor their pedagogical approach to address the distinct learning requirements of each individual child. Formative assessment, which is informed by data and aimed at facilitating evidence-based decision-making processes regarding the direction of learning, is an integral component of pedagogical practices. With regard to assessment, the particular form of formative assessment to which this text refers may be considered one that is entirely in the hands of the teachers (Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen & Becker, 2003; Veldhuis & van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, 2020).

1.1.2. Curriculum Reform of Mathematics Education in Preschools in Latvia

In Latvia, a comprehensive reform of the preschool education curriculum has been initiated with the aim of aligning it with 21st-century learning objectives (Ministry of Education and Science of Latvia, 2019). Implemented in 2019, the new national guidelines move away from traditional, teacher-directed methods in favour of a competence-based, child-centred approach. The recently revised mathematics curriculum encompasses the formulation of mathematics teaching and learning content, in addition to establishing specific learning outcomes. The innovation in the new mathematics curriculum has been identified as a key factor in defining the transversal skills (Helmane & Vigule, 2022).

In accordance with the latest educational curricula, preschool teachers are now guided to incorporate key skill areas—including early mathematics—through integrated thematic activities and playful learning experiences, rather than isolated drills. This reform signifies a shift toward inquiry-driven pedagogy: children are encouraged to explore and solve problems in natural contexts, an approach expected to strengthen their independence and deep understanding across domains. Early evidence indicates that Latvia’s curriculum changes are fostering more holistic skill development in preschools, consistent with Europe-wide efforts to improve quality and innovation in early childhood education (European Commission, 2020). By embedding mathematics in everyday activities and emphasizing critical thinking, Latvia’s reforms aim to equip young learners with the foundational competencies and positive learning attitudes essential for success in the modern world. The role of the preschool teacher is not merely to provide a retelling of mathematical facts; rather, it is to facilitate a purposeful learning experience that enables children to comprehend the concepts being taught. The preschool teacher’s responsibility is to bridge the gap between informal knowledge, acquired through play and everyday life, and formal knowledge. The new preschool curriculum has been developed to “[…] reflect the expected outcomes for the child at each stage of preschool education in a sequential manner” (Preschool Curriculum, 2019, p. 5).

Notwithstanding the fact that preschool education has been compulsory for five- and six-year-olds in Latvia since 1999 (General Education Law, 1999), it has been approximately two decades since particular emphasis has been placed on the key learning areas deemed essential for children to master (Cabinet of Ministers, 2018b). The overarching aim of this initiative is to foster the development of literacy as a complex learning outcome over time. The learning outcomes in mathematics are structured in three content units: the language of mathematics, relationships between quantities, and exploring the properties, position and characteristics of shapes. These outcomes are closely linked to the relevant Big Ideas in the Education Standard, and are to be achieved through inquiry-based, practical and experiential learning (Preschool Curriculum, 2019).

1.1.3. Teachers’ Views on Curriculum Reforms

As these changes are implemented, the role of educators becomes crucial in interpreting and applying new curriculum standards in developmentally appropriate and pedagogically sound ways (Ross, 2024). Teacher views have been shown to exert a pivotal role in the successful implementation of any curriculum (Fullan, 2007). The beliefs, experiences and attitudes of teachers have been demonstrated to directly influence how curricular changes are interpreted and enacted in the classroom (Kostelnik et al., 2014). The involvement of teachers in the development or refinement of curricula is therefore of paramount importance to ensure fidelity of implementation (Clayback et al., 2023; Pajares, 1992; Priestley et al., 2015). Research indicates that when educators perceive the curriculum to be clear, relevant, and adaptable to their students’ needs, they are more likely to adopt it with enthusiasm and commitment (Voogt et al., 2016; Clayback et al., 2023; Spillane et al., 2002). Furthermore, their feedback can assist in the development of teacher education curriculum, ensuring a more precise alignment between curriculum intent and classroom practice (Darling-Hammond, 2006). The beliefs held by teachers also serve to mediate their instructional decisions. Consequently, engaging with these views may assist in anticipating how curricular content may be adapted or resisted (Fang, 1996). Incorporating the views of pre-service teachers in evaluation processes fosters a curriculum development model that is more inclusive and responsive, aligning with the realities of diverse classroom settings (Borko et al., 2008).

It is imperative that active teacher involvement in the analysis of the mathematics curriculum is facilitated in order to ensure effective implementation and relevance to the needs of children. The recognition and integration of teachers’ views have been demonstrated to result in a more responsive, practical, and sustainable approach to educational reform in the domain of pre-primary mathematics education.

2. Materials and Methods

The descriptive design research on prospective teachers’ views about the transformation of the mathematics education curriculum in preschool was implemented at the Faculty of Education Sciences and Psychology at University of Latvia. The present study was conducted in Riga, a city that is home to a significant number of part-time students, as well as in the four branches of the University of Latvia located in various Latvian cities, including Cesis, Kuldiga, Bauska, and Tukums. It is noteworthy that these latter locations also host part-time students (Figure 1). Consequently, the study involved students from diverse regions of Latvia.

The Faculty of Education Sciences and Psychology at the University of Latvia implements the short-cycle higher professional education study programme Preschool Teacher, in which prospective preschool teachers acquire 120 European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) credits in five semesters of part-time studies. The Preschool Teacher study programme is designed to equip prospective educators with the competencies, professional development skills, and a commitment to lifelong learning that are essential for the role of a preschool teacher. The programme offers a combination of theory-based and practice-oriented studies in educational sciences, aiming to foster well-rounded professionals in the field. The programme adopts an interdisciplinary approach, combining pedagogy, psychology, and methodology, in order to foster the ability to critically analyze the interrelationships between society and the content of preschool education, to develop professional competences in planning and implementing the pedagogical process, to encourage research and innovation, and to support the creative, social and professional development of students.

The research was conducted during the 2023–2025 academic year, when part-time students enrolled in the short-cycle higher professional education study programme Preschool Teacher commenced the “Content and Learning Approaches in Mathematics Education” study course. Prospective teachers are required to undertake the “Content and Learning Approaches in Mathematics Education” course, amounting to 4 ECTS credits, during the third and fourth semester of their second academic year.

The selection of participants was a deliberate process, informed by the understanding that individuals possess unique insights derived from their individual experiences (Patton, 2015). The participants (N = 271) were purposively selected on the basis of their commonalities in characteristics: studies at the University of Latvia and work experience in the preschool sector. The participants in the study were second- and third-year part-time students enrolled in the short-cycle higher professional education Preschool Teacher programme at the University of Latvia (

Table 1. Participants in the study.

Variable		ƒ (%)
Gender	Female	271 (100)
	Male	0 (0)
	Prefer not to show	0 (0)
Study in Branches of University of Latvia	Bauska	27 (9.9)
	Tukums	42 (15.4)
	Riga	139 (51.2)
	Kuldiga	25 (9.2)
	Cesis	38 (14.0)

).

All pre-service teachers participating in the study had previously studied the same courses at the University of Latvia, and were now beginning to study methodologies in different educational fields in the context of preschool education. All prospective teachers participating in the study were working as teacher assistants in a preschool institution. They had at least one year’s experience in the field of preschool education. In accordance with the provisions stipulated in the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Latvia Regulation No. 569, which establishes the educational and professional qualification requirements for those engaged in the profession of teaching, it is permissible to undertake the role of a preschool teacher without having attained full completion of pedagogical education. In order to pursue a career as a preschool teacher without having completed a fully comprehensive pedagogical education, it is first essential to embark upon and commit to an appropriate study programme (Cabinet of Ministers, 2018a, Regulation No. 569). However, this study focuses specifically on prospective teachers because their views offer unique insights into how the newly implemented curriculum is interpreted and internalized by those entering the profession. This demographic represents the next generation of educators, and their understanding of the curriculum—formed during their teacher education—is crucial to its successful implementation. Their responses reflect both how the curriculum is being communicated in teacher study programs and how it is perceived before significant classroom experience shapes their views. While experienced teachers would certainly provide a different and valuable perspective, the study was designed to capture the initial views of the curriculum transformation at the entry level.

The data for the study were collected during a focus group discussion (total 54 group discussions). Focus group discussions are a qualitative research method widely used in the social sciences to explore participants’ attitudes, perceptions, and experiences in a group setting (Krueger & Casey, 2015). The present study employed the single-focus group discussion. It is an interactive discussion of a topic by a collection of all participants and a team of facilitators as one group in one place (Morgan, 1996). The discussion was focused, with a specific sequence of questioning, and their structure was such that consistent questioning was used across groups (Vaughn et al., 1996; Fern, 2001).

Single-focus group discussion was organized as part of a classroom activity in the first lecture of the study course, entitled “Content and Learning Approaches in Mathematics Education”. The classroom activity was delivered to a total of eight groups of prospective preschool teachers. The groups were distributed across different study locations, and each group engaged in six to seven parallel single-focus group discussions. The researchers selected the documents for the group discussion according to predetermined criteria (Helmane & Vigule, 2022). This ensured that the documents were relevant and appropriate for the discourse (Figure 2).

The employment of a select number of documents as supporting materials was undertaken in order that the discussion might be made more focused. Based on the Preschool Curriculum (2019) and the Preschool Education Curriculum (2012), the prospective teachers were invited to provide their views on the changes that have taken place after the education content transformation in the mathematics curriculum of preschool in Latvia. Documents as supporting materials facilitated a more open expression of opinion by the students.

They then engaged in small-group settings ranging from 4 to 6 participants. Focus group discussions were conducted using a worksheet containing a series of questions to consider, with the aim of eliciting the participants’ views: What is your view of the aims that are inherent in both the pre- and post-reform mathematics curricula? What is your view of the content that is inherent in both the pre- and post-reform mathematics curricula? What is your view of the assessment that is inherent in both the pre- and post-reform mathematics curricula? What is your view of the teaching/learning process of mathematics education that is inherent in both the pre- and post-reform mathematics curricula?; What differences do you identify in mathematics pre-reform curricula and mathematics post-reform curricula? What is your view on the level of preparedness and the degree to which the curriculum aligns with future teaching practice? It was evident that the prospective teachers predominantly influenced the direction of group discussions. Within selected documents, prospective teachers identified their views about the aims of mathematics education, the content of mathematics, the assessment, and the teaching/learning process of mathematics in the preschool education stage.

The prospective teachers themselves took the initiative to participate in the group discussions and formulate, visualize group views about the aims of mathematics education, the content of mathematics, the assessment, and the teaching/learning process of mathematics in preschool education as indicators for the transformation of the mathematics education curriculum in Latvian preschools. The visualization helped the prospective teachers to formulate and express their points of view. The total number of group discussions that took place was 54. The duration of each session was between 60 and 90 min. It is important to note that all group discussions were meticulously recorded using mobile phones or laptops. Subsequent transcription of audio recordings was conducted, ensuring comprehensive documentation of the proceedings.

One of the qualitative analysis methods that can be used to analyze focus group data is content analysis. This approach enables the systematic coding of data, organizing information into categories to reveal patterns (Robson, 2006). The process of content analysis entails two sequential cycles: initial coding and focused coding (Charmaz, 2006; Miles et al., 2014). In this study, initial coding was conducted for the purpose of content analysis of the data. The study data were selected and double-coded by two independent coders. Researchers independently created a broad and unlimited list of category codes. In the cycle of focused coding, the researchers refined the initial codes by excluding, merging, or splitting them. At this stage, particular attention was paid to the identification of recurring ideas and broader themes linking the codes. The scientists worked together to compare and produce the final version of the codes (

Table 2. Category and code.

Category	Code
Aim of mathematics education	Comprehensibility
	Action-Oriented pedagogy
	Child holistic development
	Development of literacy and acquisition of skills
	Mathematics in everyday life
Content of mathematics education	Comprehensibility
	Concept clarity
	Concept development strategies
	Foundational skills
	Child comprehension of the real world
Assessment in mathematics education	Comprehensibility
	Applicable principles curriculum alignment
	Techniques for comprehensiveness
	Feedback for progress
	Child engagement
Mathematics teaching and learning process	Comprehensibility
	Teacher-Child interaction
	Strategies
	Teacher position
	Child involvement

).

In the event of a divergence of opinion between the two coders, a meeting was convened for the purpose of reaching a consensus.

3. Results

The data gathered from prospective teachers offer insight into how the mathematics curriculum is perceived across two different curriculum periods, namely 2012 and 2019. Throughout the duration of the focus group discussions, prospective preschool teachers contributed their views on the mathematics standard in visual materials (Figure 3). Participants were encouraged to create visualizations during the discussion about the documents, with the aim of facilitating structured analysis and reasoned views, thus enriching the qualitative results. The materials employed for the purpose of visualization did not have any influence on the data analysis process. However, they facilitated engagement in discussion among the participants.

The frequency (f) of responses provides a comparative framework for understanding shifts in educational focus. The utilization of percentages was employed to provide a quantitative indication of the relative prominence of specific themes across the participant responses. In order to address this issue with greater clarity, it is important to recognize that the percentages are intended to be illustrative rather than definitive measures. These figures represent the frequency with which certain categories were mentioned across all responses, thus highlighting which views were most commonly observed while remaining grounded in the interpretive nature of qualitative research. The analysis of prospective teachers’ views on various aspects of mathematics education reveals distinct focal points across four key categories. In the “aim of mathematics education” category, respondents most frequently emphasized the importance of comprehensibility, the development of mathematical literacy, and the acquisition of skills. This finding indicates a strong belief in the foundational and practical purposes of math education. Within the domain of mathematics education, the prevailing concern pertained to the clarity of concepts, signifying that educators place significant value on the precise and lucid presentation of mathematical concepts, as this is deemed indispensable for efficacious learning outcomes.

In the “assessment of mathematics education” category, prospective teachers identified applicable principles and curriculum alignment as the most critical aspects, reflecting a desire for assessments that are both practical and consistent with instructional goals. In the “mathematics teaching and learning” category, the most emphasized elements were teacher-child interaction and the teacher’s role, underlining the perceived importance of the teacher’s engagement and influence in the learning process.

3.1. Prospective Teachers’ View on the Aim of Mathematics Education

An analysis of the focus group discussions indicated that the prospective preschool teachers’ view on the aim of mathematics education was most frequently one of comprehensibility, development of literacy, and acquisition of skills (

Table 3. Prospective teachers’ view on the aim of mathematics education.

Code for Aim of Mathematics Education	P1 1 f (%)	P2 1 f (%)
Comprehensibility	148 (54.6)	120 (44.2)
Action-Oriented pedagogy	16 (5.9)	68 (25.0)
Child Holistic development	40 (14.7)	16 (5.9)
Development of literacy and acquisition of skills	148 (54.6)	96 (35.4)
Mathematics in everyday life	0 (0)	8(2.9)

¹ P1—Preschool Education Curriculum (2012); P2—Preschool Curriculum (2019).

).

It is evident that comprehensibility is the most frequently mentioned aim of mathematics education. This category predominates among the perceptions of pre-service teachers (N = 268) in both the 2012 and 2019 preschool mathematics curriculum. Prospective teachers emphasized the significance of rendering mathematical concepts comprehensible to preschool children. Despite a slight decrease in 2019, this remains a dominant theme, reflecting a consistent belief that clarity and comprehensibility for early mathematics education for both teachers and stakeholders should be central to the purpose of mathematics. Prospective teachers emphasized the necessity of articulating the fundamental purpose of mathematics in a manner that provides a lucid understanding of the established priorities, the desired direction for the subject, and the content to be imparted within the context of the mathematics education curriculum. Concerning the clarity of the mathematics aim, focus group participants often used words such as “clear, understandable, and concise” to describe the purpose of teaching mathematics. For example, a prospective teacher argued that “[…] the learning objective for mathematics must be clear and understandable”, “[…] read the aim and understand what needs to be done”, […] the aim itself is so general that nothing is clear when you read it”.

The second most salient code in the students’ discussions was the relevance of the mathematics aim and objectives to the development of literacy and mathematical skills. The development of skills and literacy is recognized as a fundamental component of both curriculums, though this emphasis has diminished in recent years. It is evident that students view the 2012 curriculum as having been explicitly designed with the objective of “[…] building, constructing knowledge, skills, and attitudes”. By way of contrast, the 2019 curriculum is oriented towards the foundational principles of literacy: “[…] develop literacy basics through multiple learning areas to make it more interesting for children”, “[…] the positive is the basis of literacy in all fields of learning”. The findings of this study suggest that teachers view mathematics not only as a discipline involving numbers but also as a medium for developing more extensive cognitive abilities and fundamental literacy skills: “[…] more analysis, action, inference (develops thinking processes), not just numbers”, “[…] the teacher guides the child to think, solve problems, make reasoning judgments and justify them”, “[…] children do not just learn numbers, they learn to express their thoughts, to make conclusions”. It has been demonstrated that prospective teachers are aware of the need to relate mathematical content to real-life situations and to a cross-disciplinary approach. The decline observed in 2019 may signify a shift in pedagogical emphasis or curricular focus.

The action-oriented pedagogy is mentioned more often in the context of the 2019 mathematics curriculum. A significant increase in 2019 indicates a growing interest in action-oriented pedagogy as a strategy that promotes active student engagement, collaboration, and critical thinking. This shift may be indicative of a more widespread educational trend towards active learning, where mathematics is taught through play, problem-solving, and real-life applications. This assertion is supported by the views: “[…] children become interested in participating when mathematics is combined with other fields of learning”, “[…] develop a positive attitude towards learning by doing”, “[…] the new curriculum is process-oriented”, “[…] the child has a free choice of how to achieve the result with the support of the teacher”. The views expressed by the prospective teachers included insights that emphasized the necessity to implement an educational approach that combines pedagogical strategies and cross-disciplinary connections to link subject matter with real-world applications. Prospective teachers stressed that it emphasizes holistic, meaningful learning experiences by integrating multiple subjects and providing actionable guidelines that encourage active engagement, critical thinking, and real-life problem-solving.

In the sub-category of child holistic development, it was emphasized that the aims of mathematics teaching should promote the holistic development of the child—not only cognitive development but also emotional development, social development, and physical development. This approach has been observed more frequently in the discourse surrounding the 2012 curriculum, with students presuming its integration as an essential component of the learning process. Conversely, in the discourse on the 2019 curriculum, it is emphasized only in a limited number of instances: “[…] the 2012 curriculum focuses on the harmonious development of the child, while the new curriculum focuses on building of the math literacy”, “[…] to promote the all-round, harmonious development of the child”. This theme witnessed a decline in 2019, indicating a potential shift in priorities away from integrated developmental goals in the field of mathematics education. Whilst holistic development remains an important educational objective, its reduced emphasis in 2019 might imply that mathematics is being viewed more in terms of subject-specific competencies than as a vehicle for overall development.

The sub-category mathematics in everyday life did not appear in the discussions on the 2012 curriculum but only in two groups in the discussions on the 2019 curriculum, with students stating “[…] mathematics content is taught through all subject areas”. The sub-category is characterized by an absence of representation, and its emergence in 2019 may be indicative of an initial recognition of the relevance of mathematics in daily life. This approach is consistent with contemporary educational frameworks that emphasize the importance of real-world application and relevance in curriculum design. This observation underscores the necessity to address this issue during the course of the study. It is imperative to enhance the mathematical comprehension of prospective teachers. It is imperative that they comprehend and acknowledge the pervasive and foundational role of mathematics in the world around them. This phenomenon is not confined to academic settings but rather pervades everyday life, manifesting in subtle or imperceptible ways.

A detailed analysis of data gathered from prospective teachers has provided valuable insights into how the aim of mathematics education is viewed across two different curriculum periods. The analysis reveals that pre-service teachers most often emphasize clarity of learning objectives and competency development. However, there is an increasing focus on active, integrative, and learner-centered teaching strategies. These trends are indicative of the prevailing mainstream within international educational discourse, which emphasizes the necessity to strengthen practice-based approaches, cross-disciplinarity, and holistic support for child development in teacher education.

3.2. Prospective Teachers’ Views on the Content of Mathematics Education

When analyzing data on pre-service teachers’ views on the content of mathematics education, the most frequently highlighted category is mathematics content conceptual clarity. The present study has sought to explore and analyze the trends that have been observed in relation to both the 2012 and 2019 curricula. The findings of this research suggest that the clarity and structure of content are viewed as significant aspects of mathematics education for prospective teachers, irrespective of any curriculum changes that may have occurred (

Table 4. Prospective teachers’ views on the content of mathematics education.

Code for Content of Mathematics Education	P1 1 f (%)	P2 1 f (%)
Comprehensibility	44 (16.2)	87 (48.3)
Concept clarity	132 (48.7)	149 (54.9)
Concept development strategies	72 (26.5)	60 (22.1)
Foundational skills	0 (0)	32 (11.8)
Child comprehension of the real world	0 (0)	48 (17.7)

¹ P1—Preschool Education Curriculum (2012); P2—Preschool Curriculum (2019).

).

Student comments on mathematics content such as “[…] the mathematics content is well described”, “[…] it is clear, simple language”, “[…] it is easier to understand what is required of the teacher” confirm that the preschool mathematics curriculum should not only be well structured but also understandable for both teachers and children. Content comprehensibility is the second most frequently mentioned aspect in the discussions and visualizations and was mentioned twice as often when discussing the 2019 curriculum than when looking at the 2012 curriculum (87 vs. 44). This indicates that the new curriculum is viewed as clearer, more structured, and easier to understand, which may have a positive impact on the confidence of pre-service teachers in their ability to implement it in practice. In the discussions, students indicated that “[…] mathematics is included in all subject areas and it is more interesting and understandable”, “[…] the teacher can expand into the subject”, “[…] the teacher’s activities are not limited”.

The code concept development strategies indicate activities that are practical, meaningful, and interesting for children. The analysis of the data indicated that the necessity to emphasize hands-on methodology in the training of pre-service teachers remains pertinent. Overall, this category was mentioned 132 times in the discussions, but when looking at the analysis of the 2019 curriculum, students mentioned it only 60 times in their discussions. Data analysis indicates that, while the curriculum content is viewed as clear and comprehensible by pre-service teachers, there appears to be a lack of emphasis on an active, child-centered learning environment. This suggests that the curriculum implementation in practice may be contingent on teacher initiative and the availability of resources, as indicated by students’ statements that “[…] the teacher has to create the materials himself”, “[…] the teacher can burn out”, “[…] previously had the materials to work with the children”. Contrary statements in the discussion—“[…] the teacher chooses how the child learns mathematical skills”, “[…] the teacher has discretion, “[…] the child has more options, different methods”, “[…] focus on practical work”, “[…] the child independently learns new knowledge (practically)”, “[…] the teacher is only a guide, motivator of the child’s activity”, “[…] the child uses all senses when learning new things” and “[…] there is no uniform system for all preschools”, “[…] the presentation of the content is more complex, more difficult to understand”. This indicates a lack of consensus among the participants in the discussion regarding the principles of organization of preschool mathematics education and points to possible confusion or different understandings of the guidelines set at the national level.

The code child comprehension of the real world only appears when discussing and visualizing the 2019 curriculum. The active involvement of the child in the learning process was repeatedly emphasized in the students’ statements, stating “[…] the child has to analyze, act, conclude more on his/her own”. It reflects the students’ understanding that active learning is important for the child’s cognitive development; the child is not just a passive receiver of knowledge but an active participant in the learning process, able to take the initiative and make independent conclusions, thus developing not only knowledge but also reflection skills. Student statements evidence this, such as “[…] children learn to express their opinions and to understand and realize their thoughts”, as well as “[…] by talking, discussing, children strengthen their knowledge, exchange and share their opinions”. The discussions revealed students’ observations on the relevance of the curriculum to children’s everyday life and practical experience: “[…] mathematics is included in everyday life”. One group of students noted that “[…] the 2019 curriculum integrates mathematics in all areas of learning”, while others felt that the curriculum is generally integrated. These statements indicate an understanding of the interdisciplinary nature of the curriculum and its orientation towards a life-based approach. It is the contention of the students that this approach facilitates the child’s capacity to navigate the environment more adeptly, comprehend diverse processes, and assimilate the curriculum within a context that is pertinent to real-life scenarios. The presence of these sub-categories in the analysis of the 2019 curriculum exclusively indicates that, from the views of the prospective teachers, it is more conducive to the development of children. In this particular instance, pre-service teachers are able to observe the strong connection of the curriculum to the practical aspects that are relevant to the child. This demonstrates the depth of the pre-service teachers’ own understanding of what the learning process should look like in order to meet the child’s needs and contribute to a fulfilling learning experience.

3.3. Prospective Teachers’ View on Assessment in Mathematics Education

Within the education system, assessment is progressively regarded as a mechanism to encourage learning, as opposed to being solely utilized for the purpose of monitoring outcomes (Preschool Curriculum, 2019; Cabinet of Ministers, 2018c, Regulation No. 747). In the context of this paradigm shift, it is important to explore how pre-service teachers view the functions and principles of assessment in the context of mathematics education. A close analysis of the views produced during the focus group discussions, in conjunction with a thorough examination of the verbal contributions, facilitates an evaluation of the shifts in perspective and an enhancement of the comprehension of the individual approach, formative assessment, and child participation (

Table 5. Prospective teachers’ view on assessment of mathematics education.

Code for Assessment of Mathematics Education	P1 1 f (%)	P2 1 f (%)
Comprehensibility	8 (2.9)	88 (32.4)
Applicable principles curriculum alignment	94 (34.6)	148 (54.6)
Techniques for comprehensiveness	80 (29.5)	44 (16.2)
Feedback for progress	28 (10.3)	100 (36.9)
Child engagement	12 (4.4)	56 (20.6)

¹ P1—Preschool Education Curriculum (2012); P2—Preschool Curriculum (2019).

).

Analyzing the focus group visualizations, the most commented statements during the discussion on assessment in mathematics were on the purpose and principles of curriculum alignment assessment. A total of 242 times, or the majority of observations in this category—94 times in the context of the 2012 curriculum and 148 times in relation to the 2019 curriculum. This fact shows an increasing awareness of the purpose of assessment, with a particular emphasis on supporting the learning process rather than just controlling the results, with the student group stating that “[…] the focus is on improving learning rather than results”. When looking at the 2019 preschool curriculum, the student groups noted that the child is assessed according to his/her level of development “[…] in 2012 the child is assessed according to criteria, but in 2018 the child’s achievement is assessed according to his/her level of development” as “[…] each child is an individual”. The student groups mentioned that assessment is “[…] more detailed, frequent, child-centred”, “[…] the child assesses his work with the teacher, discusses results, gets positive support for his work”. At the same time, the discussions revealed challenges for the teacher, since, as one group pointed out, “[…] it is difficult for the teacher to evaluate each child”. This comment underlines the need for support mechanisms for teachers to successfully implement an individual approach to assessment.

The aspect of comprehensibility is also important for prospective preschool teachers. This category is mentioned 96 times in total, 88 times in the context of the 2019 curriculum, as evidenced by student comments discussing “[…] specific assessment criteria”, “[…] everyone is assessed in the same way”. The positive focus in assessment is also highlighted “[…] only assess the positive, don’t look at the mistakes”.

The analysis of the discussions reveals that pre-service teachers have seen an increase in child engagement in the evaluation process. While in the 2012 curriculum this was seen in 12 cases, in the 2019 curriculum it has already been seen 56 times. This growth is indicative of the new curricula moving towards a student-centred learning environment where assessment also serves as a motivational and participatory tool. In addition, several group discussions point to a more active role of the child in the assessment process, such as “[…] the child is able to assess his own work” and “[…] the teacher encourages the child to assess his own performance”. Students also stress that the cooperation between teacher and child “[…] is a developmental conversation, the child evaluates his work with the teacher, discusses the results, receives positive support for his work”.

The data show that understanding of the different assessment techniques for comprehensiveness is uneven with a downward trend from 80 (2012) to 44 (2019) cases. This downward trend may indicate that although the techniques are being used, students lack a deeper understanding of their functions and purposes. This is evidenced by students’ negative statements about assessment such as “[…] have to write a lot”, “[…] have to assess the children every day” as a negative aspect is also pointed out that there is “[…] a requirement for children to know and assess their knowledge”. The positive findings on active child involvement in assessment point to a paradigm shift in education. Teachers are increasingly aware of the need to broaden assessment approaches to include performance assessment. This approach has been demonstrated to facilitate a child’s capacity for self-reflection on their learning process, thereby nurturing the development of higher-level cognitive abilities. Conversely, negative appraisals may be interpreted as an indication that the transition towards more meaningful and contemporary assessment practices for children has not yet been fully assimilated into pedagogical methodologies.

Analyzing the results of the focus group discussions, the visualizations revealed that the feedback for the progress category increased from 28 (2012) to 100 (2019) cases. This indicator is in line with global trends that emphasize the role of formative assessment in the learning process, although formative and summative assessments are not explicitly mentioned in the discussions, which may indicate a conceptual gap in these concepts, although in practice these principles are implemented “[…] it is easier to follow the progress of the child, parents can follow”. This statement by the student group implies the use of formative assessment, but the lack of terminology may reveal a conceptual gap in teacher training. Parental involvement is also only indirectly mentioned; there is no evidence of structured communication between teacher and parents as part of the assessment process.

3.4. Prospective Teachers’ Views on Mathematics Teaching and Learning

A close examination of the visualizations, in conjunction with a thorough analysis of the verbal contributions surrounding prospective teachers’ views on mathematics teaching and learning, has yielded a discernible shift towards a child-centered, process-oriented, and collaborative approach to mathematics education. This tendency is manifestly evident in both the quantitative indicators (

Table 6. Prospective teachers’ views on mathematics teaching and learning.

Code for Mathematics Teaching and Learning	P1 1 f (%)	P2 1 f (%)
Comprehensibility	44 (16.2)	88 (32.4)
Teacher-Child interaction	188 (69.3)	64 (23.6)
Strategies	64 (23.6)	128 (47.2)
Teacher position	52 (19.1)	228 (84.1)
Child involvement	20 (7.3)	116 (42.8)

¹ P1—Preschool Education Curriculum (2012); P2—Preschool Curriculum (2019).

) and the qualitative comments. This category was the subject of the highest number of comments in both the student discussions and the visualizations.

In terms of comprehensibility, this category is significant in 132 cases overall, but the 2019 curriculum is considered to be more comprehensible and clearer in the context of mathematics learning. During the analysis, the participants pointed out that the 2012 curriculum “[…] is more result-oriented”, “[…] mathematics is integrated into everyday life”, “[…] the learning process does not allow the child to understand things that are important to him or her”, “[…] the teacher is the driver, the child observes, listens, answers questions, recalls”. When looking at the learning process of the 2019 curriculum, students mentioned that “[…] the main element of the learning process is play”, “[…] the learning of mathematics content takes place in a variety of ways”. However, student discussions raised concerns that overly complex terminology may hinder understanding of the learning standard. For instance, students have highlighted that terms such as “[…] quantitative relationships”, “[…] number sense” and “[…] the language of mathematics” appear to be incomprehensible and overly theoretical in the context of pre-primary education. It was argued that these concepts are incomprehensible without explanations and practical examples to support them. The students posited that the terminology may lead to confusion among teachers when designing lessons.

A thorough examination of the available data indicates a substantial augmentation in the emphasis placed on the subcategories of child involvement and strategies. A greater number of references to child involvement and strategies were observed in the 2019 preschool curriculum in comparison to the 2012 curriculum.

In the students’ discussions, it was convincingly stated “[…] the child is an active participant, while the teacher is only a creator of play situations”, […] in which the child feels the need to acquire new knowledge and skills”. Students point to the importance of an individual approach and building on the child’s previous experiences, stating that learning will be meaningful and relevant for the child if “[…] children’s previous experiences are clarified”, but no explicit references to pedagogical strategies that promote dialogue, collaborative inquiry, or reflective thinking were identified in the focus group discussions. Mathematical understanding in preschool is most effectively developed in collaboration with adults and peers. The absence of this strategy in practice may indicate a gap between research-based pedagogical approaches and their actual implementation in the preschool setting.

Analyzing the students’ responses and their distribution by category, it is evident that over time there has been a paradigm shift from a teacher-centered to a student-centered understanding of learning. Looking at the sub-category teacher-child interaction, mentioned a total of 252 times, it was found that pre-service teachers in the 2012 curriculum see the teacher as the dominant transmitter of knowledge, illustrated by statements such as “[…] the teacher makes the child do certain things, sets tasks” and “[…] the teacher as “lecturer”, the child as performer”. Analyzing the 2019 curriculum, students were much more likely to make statements about the child’s active participation and the promotion of thinking: “[…] the teacher guides the child to think for himself”, “[…] the child is an active participant”, “[…] everyone acquires knowledge at his own pace”. Teachers stressed that “[…] the child learns to express his opinion freely”, “[…] to share, to realize his thoughts”, indicating that the child is perceived as an active participant in the process. Similarly, the data analysis shows that the 2019 curriculum emphasized the teacher’s ability to create an environment, with students stating that “[…] the teacher creates an environment in which children can act freely”, “[…] creates situations in which the child feels the need to learn new knowledge”.

The analysis of the data highlights a significant difference in the category teacher position in the role of teacher. When analyzing the 2012 curriculum, students see the teacher more as “[…] the driver of the process” and the child as a passive participant in the learning process: “[…] the child observes, listens, answers questions, recalls”. In the evaluation of the 2019 curriculum, there are frequent comments from prospective teachers about the need and willingness to create an individualized learning environment, for instance, “[…] an individual approach, guided by the child’s previous experience”, “[…] more for the child to analyze, conclude”. Prospective teachers stressing that “[…] teacher creates situations in which the child feels the need to acquire new knowledge and skills, discusses the results to be achieved, plans how to achieve what is planned, and clarifies previous experience”. This perspective on teacher-child interaction and teacher position is consistent with the findings of educational researchers on the significance of adult-child interaction in the learning process. The efficacy of mathematics education is maximized in a free, play-based environment where the teacher assumes the role of participant. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the teacher to purposefully create an environment that encourages the child to actively engage, explore, and reflect. In this manner, the child, in collaboration with the teacher, develops an understanding of mathematical concepts and acquires problem-solving skills.

4. Discussion

The findings of this study provide valuable insights into the views of prospective preschool teachers in Latvia regarding the ongoing transformation of the mathematics education curriculum. This transformation, initiated through the 2019 curriculum reform, reflects a global shift toward competence-based, child-centered approaches in early childhood education (OECD, 2025; European Commission, 2019). Our results reveal that while many of these international pedagogical principles are being recognized and appreciated by prospective teachers, there remain areas where conceptual understanding and practical application need further strengthening.

A central theme emerging from the focus group discussions is the strong emphasis prospective teachers place on clarity and comprehensibility in mathematics instruction. This aligns with the broader educational literature, which stresses that well-defined learning objectives are crucial for meaningful pedagogical planning and the achievement of learning outcomes (Kostelnik et al., 2014). Clements and Sarama (2020) argue that young children possess inherent mathematical thinking capacities that can be nurtured through developmentally appropriate, carefully designed activities. The Latvian prospective teachers’ focus on making mathematical concepts clear and accessible reinforces this idea, suggesting that teacher preparation programs have been at least partially successful in instilling the importance of age-appropriate instructional design.

Moreover, the growing endorsement of action-oriented and interactive pedagogies among participants marks a notable departure from the more traditional, teacher-directed approaches historically prevalent in Latvian preschools. This aligns with constructivist theories (Piaget, 1952) and sociocultural frameworks (Vygotsky, 1978), both of which highlight the importance of active, socially mediated learning. However, while prospective teachers increasingly view themselves as facilitators rather than mere transmitters of knowledge, the discussions reveal a limited articulation of concrete strategies to promote collaborative learning, dialogue, and reflective thinking. This gap suggests that while the theoretical underpinnings of child-centered learning are being internalized, more work is needed to translate these into practice, particularly through teacher education programs that explicitly address evidence-based methodologies (Helm & Katz, 2016).

An encouraging finding is the prospective teachers’ recognition of the importance of skill development, particularly foundational cognitive skills such as classification, pattern recognition, and problem-solving. This echoes international research emphasizing the predictive power of early mathematical competencies for later academic achievement (Duncan et al., 2007; OECD, 2018). However, despite recognizing the importance of these skills, participants placed comparatively less emphasis on fostering problem-solving abilities in unfamiliar or open-ended contexts—a key area emphasized in the Latvian curriculum reform (Skola 2030, 2017) and in broader 21st-century skills frameworks. This shortfall suggests that while prospective teachers appreciate the need for clarity and foundational skills, they may underestimate the importance of cultivating higher-order thinking, creativity, and real-life application through mathematics.

The findings also shed light on the evolving understanding of assessment practices among prospective teachers. The shift from summative, standardized assessments toward more formative, individualized approaches reflects international best practices in early childhood education (Shepard, 2000; Snow & Van Hemel, 2008). However, the absence of explicit references to formative assessment terminology or strategies points to a conceptual gap that teacher preparation programs need to address. Importantly, the underrepresentation of parental involvement in assessment discussions (Epstein, 2011) suggests that despite the curriculum’s emphasis on family-school partnerships, this dimension is not yet fully integrated into prospective teachers’ conceptual frameworks.

Another striking observation is the limited attention given to the integration of mathematics into everyday life. While prospective teachers acknowledge the relevance of mathematics as a tool for understanding the world, this theme remains marginal in their discussions, echoing earlier national reports that highlight children’s difficulties in applying theoretical knowledge to real-world situations (Skola 2030, 2017). This gap signals a need for teacher education to place greater emphasis on contextualizing mathematical learning, aligning with contemporary calls for inquiry-based, real-life-relevant learning experiences (Vigule & Helmane, 2023).

From a broader perspective, the study highlights both progress and persistent challenges in the transformation of preschool mathematics education in Latvia. On the one hand, there is clear evidence of a paradigm shift toward more dynamic, child-centered, and skills-focused pedagogies. On the other hand, the findings point to areas where prospective teachers’ conceptual and practical understanding remains incomplete, particularly concerning formative assessment, problem-solving, higher-order thinking, and the integration of parental involvement.

These findings have several implications for teacher education, curriculum development, and policy-making. First, teacher education programs must strengthen the conceptual framing of assessment types, ensuring that prospective teachers understand not just the “how” but also the “why” of formative, skills-based, and holistic assessment approaches. Second, curriculum developers should provide concrete, research-informed models and resources that help teachers translate child-centered, inquiry-based pedagogies into everyday practice. Third, educational policies should encourage stronger links between school and home, recognizing parents as active partners in their children’s mathematical development.

Finally, the study emphasizes the need to balance foundational skill development with the cultivation of creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving—skills that are essential not only for future academic success but also for lifelong learning and adaptability in an increasingly complex world (OECD, 2018). Addressing these gaps will require sustained collaboration between policymakers, curriculum designers, teacher educators, and practicing teachers to ensure that reforms are not only well-intentioned but also well-implemented.

Whilst it is not possible to generalize the results of this study, they do provide a preliminary insight into the extent to which prospective teachers view the transformation of the mathematics education curriculum in preschool in Latvia. While this study provides valuable insights into the views of prospective teachers on the transformation of the preschool mathematics education curriculum in Latvia, several limitations must be acknowledged. Firstly, it is important to note that the findings are based on a context-specific sample drawn from a single higher education institution. This limits the generalizability of the results to other contexts or programs. Secondly, as the study relies on focus group interviews conducted prior to the participants’ completion of formal coursework in preschool mathematics education, the data reflect early-stage perceptions that may evolve with further training and experience. Furthermore, while the focus group method is well-suited for exploratory inquiry and the generation of rich qualitative data, it may not capture the full depth or diversity of individual perspectives. It is recommended that future research address the limitations identified by conducting longitudinal studies. These should follow prospective teachers throughout their teacher education journey in order to assess how their understanding develops over time. Furthermore, comparative studies across multiple institutions or national contexts would provide a broader picture of how curriculum reforms are perceived and interpreted, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of teacher preparation in early childhood mathematics education.

In summary, this study contributes to the growing body of literature on early childhood mathematics education by providing empirical insights into how prospective teachers view curriculum reforms. It underscores the importance of ongoing, research-informed efforts to align teacher preparation with the demands of modern educational paradigms, ensuring that the next generation of educators is well-equipped to foster meaningful, relevant, and transformative learning experiences for young children.