This study finds that despite cultural differences, teachers are likely to share some commonalities with respect to their instructional decisions, understanding of student thinking and curricular knowledge. These similarities may reflect the convergence in teaching practice in the U.S. and China and the dedication the two countries make in improving math education. This study also finds the cross-country differences and cross-SES differences regarding teachers' PCK. On the one hand, the U.S. and Chinese math teachers of this study tend to diverge in valuing different forms of representations, explaining student misconceptions, and relating functions to other math topics. Teachers' own understanding of functions (and mathematics), standards, and high-stakes testing in each country significantly influence their PCK. On the other hand, teachers from the higher SES schools are more likely to show higher expectations for and stronger confidence in their students' mathematical skills compared to their counterparts from the lower SES schools. Teachers' differential beliefs in students' ability levels significantly contribute to their differences between socio-economic statuses.
The majority of trust research has focused on the benefits trust can have for individual actors, institutions, and organizations. This “optimistic bias” is particularly evident in work focused on institutional trust, where concepts such as procedural justice, shared values, and moral responsibility have gained prominence. But trust in institutions may not be exclusively good. We reveal implications for the “dark side” of institutional trust by reviewing relevant theories and empirical research that can contribute to a more holistic understanding. We frame our discussion by suggesting there may be a “Goldilocks principle” of institutional trust, where trust that is too low (typically the focus) or too high (not usually considered by trust researchers) may be problematic. The chapter focuses on the issue of too-high trust and processes through which such too-high trust might emerge. Specifically, excessive trust might result from external, internal, and intersecting external-internal processes. External processes refer to the actions institutions take that affect public trust, while internal processes refer to intrapersonal factors affecting a trustor’s level of trust. We describe how the beneficial psychological and behavioral outcomes of trust can be mitigated or circumvented through these processes and highlight the implications of a “darkest” side of trust when they intersect. We draw upon research on organizations and legal, governmental, and political systems to demonstrate the dark side of trust in different contexts. The conclusion outlines directions for future research and encourages researchers to consider the ethical nuances of studying how to increase institutional trust.