台灣、美國與新加坡七年級代數教材之比較研究

Comparing 7(superscript th) Grade Algebra Textbooks Used in Taiwan, U.S.A. and Singapore

10.6173/CJSE.2010.1801.03

陳仁輝(Ren-Huei Chen)；楊德清(Der-Ching Yang)

七年級 ； 代數 ； 情境數學 ； 部編數學 ； 新課程數學 ； Algebra ； Grade Seven ； MiC ； NSM ； OvT

科學教育學刊

18卷1期（2010 / 02 / 01）

43 - 61

繁體中文

本研究在比較美國「情境數學」、新加坡「新課程數學」與台灣「部編版數學」七年級代數課程教學目標、佈題方式與知識類型差異。採內容分析法，以立意取樣選取上述教材為樣本。結果顯示：「情境數學」教學目標強調情境與運用表徵為媒介，佈題方式以情境為主，並強調概念性知識的學習。「部編版數學」偏重程序性知識精熟，內容少有情意問題；「新課程數學」強調未來代數工具性角色，注重同一主題的延伸與發展多元解題策略，亦強調程序性知識與非情境佈題。「部編版數學」在佈題上有82%是無情境，和現今國際數學教育趨勢不同，建議課程改革者在進行教材編輯時應善用情境佈題，提昇學習動機，以符應數學教育之發展趨勢，進而形塑更高層次之學習環境。

The purpose of the study was to compare the algebra textbooks used by 7th-graders in Taiwan (OvT), Mathematics in Context (MiC) in the U.S.A. and the New Syllabus Mathematics (NSM) in Singapore. This study used context analysis. The purposes of this study were to compare the instructional objectives and the design of the attributes of the mathematical content and the context. The findings of this study include: (1) MiC put almost all of the mathematical content into context, but others don't; (2) the textbooks in Taiwan and Singapore put more emphasis on learning procedures by practice. The results also indicate that the Taiwan textbook has the highest level of mathematical content on algebra. Over 80% of the problems in OvT presents content without context. This is different from international trends in mathematics education. The authors suggest that the curriculum designers should put more emphasis on the development of context problems in the OvT in the future to promote learning, motivation and match the trends of international mathematics education and create learning environments for higher order thinking.

1. A. J. Baroody (Eds.),A. Dowker (Eds.)(2003).The development of arithmetic concepts and skills: Constructing adaptive expertise.Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
2. Brown, J. S.,Collin, A.,Duguid, P.(1989).Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher,46(1),32-43.
3. Chambliss, M. J.,Calfee, R. C.(1999).Textbooks for learning.London:Blackwell.
4. Fennema, E. (Eds.),Romberg, T. (Eds.)(1999).Mathematics classrooms that promote under standing.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Gu, L.,Huang, R.,Marton, F.,L. Fan (Eds.),N. Y. Wong (Eds.),J. Cai (Eds.),S. Li (Eds.)(2004).How Chinese learn mathematics: Perspectives from insiders.Singapore:World Scientific.
6. Haggarty, L.,Pepin, B.(2002).An investigation of mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms: Who gets an opportunity to learn what?.British Educational Research Journal,28(4),567-590.
7. Hiebert, J.,Gallimore, R.,Garnier, H.,Givvin, K. B.,Hollingsworth, H.,Jacobs, J.(2003).Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Result from the TIMMS 1999 video study.Washington, DC:National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
8. Lesh, R. (Eds.),Lamon, S. J. (Eds.)(1992).Assessment of authentic performance in school mathematics.Washington, DC.:American Association for the Advancement of Science.
9. Primary mathematics syllabus
10. Secondary mathematics syllabus
11. Mullis, I. V. S.,Martin, M. O.,Gonzalez, E. J.,Chrostowski, S. J.(2004).TIMSS 2003 international mathematics report: Findings from IEA's trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades.Chestnut Hill, MA:Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
12. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics(1989).Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA.:NCTM.
13. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics(2000).Principles and standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA:NCTM.
14. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development(2004).Learning for tomorrow's world: First results from PISA 2003.Paris, France:Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
15. Reys, B. J.,Reys, R. E.(2006).The development and publication of elementary mathematics textbooks: Let the buyer beware!.Phi Delta Kappan,1,377-384.
16. Romberg, T. A. (Eds.),de Lange, J. (Eds.)(1998).Mathematics in context.Chicago:EBEC.
17. Romberg, T.,Shafer, M.,S. Senk (Eds.),D. Thompson (Eds.)(2003).Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn?.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. Schmidt, W. H.,McKnight, C. C.,Houang, R. T.,Wang, H.,Wiley, D. E.,Cogan, L. S.(2001).Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
19. Schmidt, W. H.,McKnight, C. C.,Valverde, G. A.,Houang, R. T.,Wang, H.,Wiley, D. E.(1997).Many visions, many aims: A cross-national investigation of curricular intentions in school mathematics.Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic.
20. Ministry of Education database on the World Wide Web
21. Silver, E. A.,Stein, M. K.(1996).The QUASAR Project: The revolution of the possible in mathematics instructional reform in urban middle schools.Urban Education,30(4),476-521.
22. Star, J. R.(2005).Reconceptualizing procedural knowledge.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,36(5),404-411.
23. Star, J. R.,Betha, H. E.,Smith, J. P.(2000).Algebraic concepts: What's really new in new curricula?.Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School,5(7),446-451.
24. Stein, M. K.,Remillard, J.,Smith, M. S.,F. Lester (Ed.)(2007).Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning.Greenwich, CT:Information Age.
25. Stigler, J. W.,Fuson, K. C.,Ham, M.,Kim, M. S.(1986).An analysis of addition and subtraction word problems in American and Soviet elementary mathematics textbooks.Cognition and Instruction,3(3),153-171.
26. Stylianides, A. J.,Stylianides, G. J.(2007).Learning mathematics with understanding: A critical consideration of the learning principle in the principles and standards for school mathematics.The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast,4(1),103-114.
27. Törnroos, J.(2004).Mathematics textbooks, opportunity to learn and achievement.Paper presented at ICME-10M, Discussion Group 14 Copenhagen, Denmark.
28. Törnroos, J.,Novotna, J. (Ed.)(2001).2002 european research in mathematics education II.Prague:Charles University, Faculty of Education.
29. Treffers, A.,L. Streefland (Ed.)(1991).Realistic mathematics education in primary school.Utrecht:CD-b Press/Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University..
30. Van del Heuvel-Paanhuizen, M.(1996).Assessment and realistic mathematics.Utrecht, The Netherlands:Freudenthal Institute, University of Utrecht.
31. Westbury,D. L. Elliott (Eds.),A. Woodward (Eds.)(1990).Textbooks and schooling in the United States.Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.
32. Zhu, Y.,Fan, L. H.(2006).Focus on the representation of problem types in intended curriculum: A comparison of selected mathematics textbooks from Mainland China and the United States.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,4(4),609-626.
33. Zohar, A.,Dori, Y. J.(2003).Higher order thinking skills and low-achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive?.The Journal of the Learning Sciences,12(2),145-181.
34. 王石番(1996)。傳播內容分析法－理論與實證。台北:幼獅。
35. 吳麗玲(2006)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。嘉義市，國立嘉義大學數學教育研究所。
36. 林慧欣(2003)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。彰化市，國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所。
37. 徐偉民、黃金鐘(2003)。情境導向的數學教學：一個結合情境認知與建構取向的教學模式。革新國民中小學數學教育議題研討會論文集，嘉義市:
38. 徐偉民、黃金鐘(2003)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。嘉義市，國立嘉義大學數學教育研究所。
39. 數學教育公共論壇
40. 教育部(2003)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要數學學習領域。台北:教育部。
41. 曹博盛(2005)。TIMSS 2003臺灣國中二年級學生的數學成就及其相關因素之探討。科學教育月刊，283，2-34。
42. 《九年一貫數學科暫行綱要》與《加州公立學校數學內容綱要》之比較
43. 游自達、林宜城、林原宏、洪賢松、陳兆君、蔡秋菊(2007)。九年一貫課程之教科書總評鑑總結報告：設計理念、能力指標與統整性。台北:中華民國課程與教學學會。
44. 黃有義(2004)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。彰化縣，明道管理學院教學藝術研究所。
45. 中國時報(2005/05/26)

1. 曾于珏、徐偉民(2013)。臺灣、芬蘭、新加坡國小數學教科書代數教材之比較。教科書研究，6(2)，69-103。
2. 董修齊、徐偉民(2012)。國小教科書幾何教材內容之比較：以臺灣與芬蘭為例。當代教育研究，20(3)，39-86。
3. 黃皇元、徐偉民(2012)。臺灣與芬蘭國小數學教科書分數教材內容之分析。課程與教學，15(3)，75-108。
4. 徐偉民(2011)。三位六年級教師數學課程實施之比較。教育研究集刊，57(2)，85-120。
5. 徐偉民(2011)。數學課程實施―一位國小資深教師的個案研究。科學教育學刊，19(2)，101-122。
6. 徐偉民(2013)。國小教師數學教科書使用之初探。科學教育學刊，21(1)，25-48。
7. 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。
8. 徐偉民(2017)。小學數學教科書使用之探究。教科書研究，10(2)，99-132。
9. 徐偉民、柯富渝(2014)。臺灣、芬蘭、新加坡國小數學教科書幾何教材之比較。教科書研究，7(3)，101-141。
10. 楊德清、陳仁輝(2011)。臺灣、美國和新加坡三個七年級代數教科書發展學生數學能力方式之研究。科學教育學刊，19(1)，39-67。
11. 鄭婷芸、楊德清(2015)。臺灣、美國與新加坡國中階段幾何教材內容之分析比較。教育科學研究期刊，60(1)，33-72。
12. (2019)。由認知負荷觀點探討國中代數試題難度。教育研究學報，53(1)，45-70。