摘要(英) |
This thesis analyzes and compares the areas of plane geometry and plane analytic geometry in junior and high school mathematics textbooks from one publisher of Mainland China (hereinafter referred to as the China edition) and two publishers of Taiwan (Chinese Taipei, hereinafter referred to as the Taiwan edition). Find out the similarities and differences of the textbooks in both editions, and find out their respective advantages and disadvantages, in order to provide reference and reference for the compilation and use of the textbooks in the two places.
This research mainly uses literature research method, content analysis method and comparative research method to explore the differences between Chinese edition and Taiwanese edition in the contents of plane geometry and coordinate geometry in terms of arrangement order, number of units, number of pages, number of topics and teaching activities, level of cognitive needs of topics, concept introduction method, and method of theorem proof. In addition, the chapters that are not completely corresponding are sorted out, and the connection between the function and the figure knowledge structure is also discussed.
Through comparative research, this paper has the following findings.
First, in terms of arrangement order, knowledge arrangement between Chinese edition chapters is more scattered, while knowledge arrangement between Taiwan edition chapters is more concentrated. The different order of chapter arrangement will lead to different proof methods of the same property and formula.
Second, in terms of the proportion of textbooks, in the junior high school stage, the distribution ratio of relevant units and pages, the number of teaching activities related to the content and the total number of teaching activities in the Chinese edition are higher than those of the Taiwan edition, while the average number of questions per page is similar. In the high school stage, the distribution ratios of relevant units and pages in the two editions are similar. The average number of questions per page in the Taiwan edition is more than that in the Chinese edition, and the number of related content teaching activities, total teaching activities and related distribution ratio in the Chinese edition are more than that in the Taiwan edition.
Thirdly, in terms of the level of cognitive needs for the distributing questions, the distributing questions of the two editions of the textbooks are all concentrated on specific question types: regardless of the overall content or most of the content categories, they are concentrated on unrelated procedural problems.
Fourthly, the reason why the chapters of the two editions of the textbooks are not completely corresponding to the topics within the scope of this thesis are: the establishment of knowledge points does not affect the course structure, or the relevant knowledge points are arranged in the textbook narrative or sample questions, and there is no independent chapter.
Fifth, in terms of the way of concept introduction, the two editions of textbooks have roughly the same definitions and descriptions of the same concept, but the ways of introducing the same concept are still quite different. Among them, the Chinese edition mostly introduces in the way of mathematical problems and reviewing old knowledge, while Taiwan edition mostly introduces directly.
Sixth, in terms of theorem proving, the different descriptions of the definition and the different order of chapters will lead to different methods of proving the properties, judgments, and formulas in the chapters.
Seventh, in terms of the connection between the function and the figure knowledge structure, compared with Taiwan edition, the Chinese edition of "the connection between linear function and linear knowledge structure" is slightly insufficient, while the two editions of "the connection between quadratic function and parabola knowledge structure" have their own strengths.
Finally, based on the differences and characteristics of the two editions of textbooks, the suggestions for mutual reference are as follows.
1.The Chinese textbooks can be used for reference: To enhance the inherent integrity of mathematical knowledge; increasing the number of examples and focus on the process of knowledge formation; increasing the set of related procedural problems and mathematical problems to improve the level of cognitive needs; paying attention to the intuitiveness of geometric figures; paying attention to the integration of information technology and textbooks, cultivate students′ inquiry spirit and practical ability; Optimizing the knowledge structure connection of mathematics textbooks in junior and high schools.
2.Taiwan edition of the textbook can be used for reference: Increasing the situational setting of example exercises to improve students′ ability to solve practical problems; increasing the number of teaching activities to improve students′ operational ability; increasing the set of exercises related procedural problems and mathematical problems to improve the level of cognitive needs. |
參考文獻 |
期刊論文與書籍著作
王文科、王智弘(2007)。教育研究法(第七版)。臺北:五南。
王承旭(1999)。比較教育史。人民教育出版社。
王建明,張思明(2001)。高中幾何課程標準之我見。數學教育學報,10(4),55-58。
吳玉炎(2017)。略談初高中坐標幾何銜接教學。教師通訊,19,45。
吳麗玲、楊德清(2007)。臺灣、新加坡與美國國小五、六年級分數教材佈題呈 現與知識屬性差異之研究。國立編譯館館刊,35(2),75-86。
沈超(2012)。也談數學概念的定義方式。教學月刊小學版,2012.11,26-27。
李祖祥(2011)。臺灣南一書局《生活》教科書簡評。教育測量與評價(理論版),2011(11),12-17。
李開慧(2005)。關於中馬初中數學教材的比較研究。數學教育學報,14(1),38-41。
林重新(2001)。教育研究法。臺北:楊智文化。
邵瑞珍(1997)。教育心理學。上海:上海教育出版社。
郭生玉(2005)。心理與教育研究法。臺北:精華。
周遠方(2007)。四套高中數學新課標教材的結構比較與思考——以坐標幾何初步為例。數學通訊,21,1-6。
高雪松,金寶錚(2016)。假於物,授之漁,將遠行——圖形計算器與高中數學教學的整合實驗報告。數學通報,55(4),55-59。
徐偉民(2013)。國小數學教科書數學問題類型與呈現方式之比較分析──以臺 灣、芬蘭、新加坡為例。科學教育學刊,21(3),263-289。
孫名符(1996)。數學教育學原理。臺北:建宏。
馬雲鵬(2004)。教育科學研究方法。東北師範大學出版社。
張奠宙(1994)。數學教育研究導引。南京:江蘇教育出版社。
黃光雄、簡茂發(1993)。教育研究法。臺北:師大書苑。
楊德清、陳仁輝(2011)。台灣、美國和新加坡三個七年級代數課程發展學生數學能力方式之研究。科學教育學刊,19(1),43-61。
楊孝濚(1994)。傳播研究方法總論。臺北:三民書局。
歐用生(1997)。教育研究法。臺北:師大書苑。
蔡春美(1993)。幼稚園與小學銜接問題的調查研究。臺北師範學報,6,665-730。
董純才(1985)。中國大百科全書教育卷。北京:中國大百科全書出版社。
鐘啟泉(2006)。現代課程論(新版)。上海:上海教育出版社。
傅志強(2010)。平面幾何知識在坐標幾何中的兩大用處。中學生數理化教與學,2010.01,79。
嚴學怡(2000)。教育體系內學制間溝通、銜接的特點、形式和方法。上海電機技術高等專科學報,2000(1),9-12。
蕭儒棠、吳慧瑉(2017)。大型教育調查研究實務:以TASA為例。新北:國家教育研究院。
Ding, M., & Li, X. (2010). A comparative analysis of distributive property in U.S. and Chinese elementary mathematics textbooks. Cognition and Instruction, 28(2), 146-180.
Duke, C. (1985). A Look at Current State-Wide Text Adoption Procedures. Retrieved March 10, 2010 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED254864.pdf
Fan, L., Zhu, Y., & Miao, Z. (2013). Textbook research in mathematics education: development status and directions. ZDM, 45(5), 633-646.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., & Jacobs, J. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2013). What does the NAEP mathematics assessment measure?? Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/mathematics/whatmeasure.aspx
Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Cogan, L. S., Jakwerth, P. M., & Houang, R. T. (1999). Facing the consequences: Usin g TIMSS for a closer look at US mathematics and science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers
Son, J., & Senk, S. L. (2010). How reform curricula in the USA and Korea present multiplication and division of fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74(2), 117-142.
Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An anal ysis of mathematical task s used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33 ,455-488.
Stein.M.K.(2001)。實驗初中數學課程標準的教學實例。李忠如 譯。上海:上海教育出版社。
Stein, M., Remillard, J., & Smith M. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. In F. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 319-369). Gweenwich, CT: Information Age.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2004). Improving mathematics teaching. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 12-17.
Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chavez, O., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. (2008). The impact of middle grades mathematics curricula and the classroom learning environment on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(3), 247-280.
學位論文
謝小明(2014)。中美兩國三地高中數學幾何教材比較研究——以美國Prentice Hall版、臺灣南一版和大陸人教A版教材。廣西師範大學。
楊海麗(2018)。兩套高中數學教材例題習題配置的比較研究——以必修2「坐標幾何初步」為例。河北師範大學。
張瀟瀟(2013)。基於概念引入的高中數學教材比較研究。首都師範大學。
宋琳琳(2015)。中英初中數學教材中定義引入方式的比較研究。東北師範學院。
幹薇(2006)。運用教育銜接思想幫助大學新生適應的必要性論證及實施策略。上海師範大學。
謝金芮(2014)。初高中數學知識結構銜接研究——以現行人教版教材為例。西南大學。
胡莉莉(2008)。中美初中數學教材難度的比較研究——以我國人教版和美國Prentice Hall教材為例。華東師範大學。
姚雪(2010)。上海、香港、新加坡高中數學教科書的比較研究。華東師範大學。
黃倩(2013)。臺灣地區和大陸地區高中數學教材的比較研究。華中師範大學。
何亮亮(2013)。我國大陸與臺灣高中數學教材的比較研究——以人教A版與南一版為例。西北師範大學。
田一君(2016)。中美初中幾何知識編排的比較——以中國人教版和美國ML版教材為例。西南大學。
梁竹(2010)。中國、新加坡初中教材平面幾何。華東師範大學。
孫海曼(2013)。在我國大陸與臺灣地區初中數學教材「圖形與幾何」部分的比較研究——以大陸人教版與臺灣南一版。廣西師範大學。
林鴻哲(2013)。臺灣、中國上海、新加坡國中幾何教材內容之比較。國立嘉義大學。
張玟溢(2020)。臺灣、美國、新加坡國中函數主題教材之比較研究。國立嘉義大學。
薑瑞(2020)。人教版、蘇科版與滬教版初中數學教材幾何習題的比較研究。信陽師範學院。
軒轅新琪(2019)。中澳初中數學教科書幾何概念引入的比較研究。天津師範學院。
劉婧(2013)。人教版初高中數學教材銜接。西南大學。
史建雲(2011)。新課標下普通高中數學教材使用情況的調查研究——以人教A版教材為例。曲阜師範大學。
鄭婷芸(2011)。臺灣、美國新加坡國中階段幾何教材內容之分析比較。國立嘉義大學。
文檔
中華人民共和國教育部。義務教育數學課程標準(2011年版)。北京師範大學出版社。
中華人民共和國教育部。普通高中數學課程標準(2017年版2020年修訂)。
臺灣教育部。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要(2018年版)。
林福來(1994)。八十三年度基礎科目數學科試題研發工作計畫。臺北市: 大學入學考試中心。
章紅雨(2011)。人教版新課標實驗教材選用率超50%。中國新聞出版報。2011-9-22第3版。
教育部辦公廳(2019)。新高考過渡時期數學學科考試範圍說明。
教材
林群。義務教育課程標準試驗教科書(數學)7年級上冊。北京:人民教育出版社。
林群。義務教育課程標準試驗教科書(數學)7年級下冊。北京:人民教育出版社。
林群。義務教育課程標準試驗教科書(數學)8年級上冊。北京:人民教育出版社。
林群。義務教育課程標準試驗教科書(數學)8年級下冊。北京:人民教育出版社。
林群。義務教育課程標準試驗教科書(數學)9年級上冊。北京:人民教育出版社。
林群。義務教育課程標準試驗教科書(數學)9年級下冊。北京:人民教育出版社。
章建躍、李增滬。普通高中教科書(數學)必修第一冊。北京:人民教育出版社。
章建躍、李增滬。普通高中教科書(數學)必修第二冊。北京:人民教育出版社。
章建躍、李增滬。普通高中教科書(數學)必修第一冊。北京:人民教育出版社。
章建躍、李增滬。普通高中教科書(數學)必修第二冊。北京:人民教育出版社。
章建躍、李增滬。普通高中教科書(數學)必修第三冊。北京:人民教育出版社。
國民中學《數學第一冊》。匿名。
國民中學《數學第二冊》。匿名。
國民中學《數學第三冊》。匿名。
國民中學《數學第四冊》。匿名。
國民中學《數學第五冊》。匿名。
國民中學《數學第六冊》。匿名。
高級中學《數學(一)》。匿名。
高級中學《數學(二)》。匿名。
高級中學《數學(三)B》。匿名。
高級中學《數學(四)B》。匿名。 |