國小幾何教材內容之比較：以臺灣與芬蘭為例

The Content Analysis of Geometry Material in the Elementary Mathematic Textbooks of Taiwan and Finland

10.6151/CERQ.2012.2003.02

徐偉民(Wei-Min Hsu)；董修齊(Hsiu-Chi Tung)

內容分析 ； 國小 ； 幾何教材 ； 教學教科書 ； content analysis ； elementary school ； geometry instructional materials ； mathematics textbooks

當代教育研究季刊

20卷3期（2012 / 09 / 30）

39 - 86

繁體中文

本研究旨在探討臺灣與芬蘭國小數學教科書，在幾何教材內容呈現的異同。研究對象為臺灣康軒版和芬蘭WSOY版教科書，採用內容分析的方法，以課程目標和數學問題為分析單位，依研究者設計的分析類日，來分析兩國幾何教材目標和內容呈現的特色。研究結果顯示，在幾何教材目標上，兩國皆強調透過操作來理解幾何形體的性質，在幾何教材內容上，兩國教科書中的幾何問題都以幾何形體的辨識與建置最多，不論是在教材目標和內容上，兩國空間幾何內容所占的比例都偏低。此外，本研究也發現，臺灣幾何問題多使用圓形和文字來呈現，並意圖經由解題結果來歸納和發現幾何形體的特色或定義，而芬蘭幾何問題的呈現則以圓形為主。兩國教材中，幾何概念呈現的順序和結構大致符合van Hiele幾何思考和發展的理論。

This study compared the geometry content of instructional materials used at the elementary school level in Taiwan and Finland. The instructional materials reviewed were the Kang Hsuan textbooks used in Taiwan and the WSOY textbooks used in Finland. The methodology employed was content analysis with curriculum objectives and mathematics problems as the analytic units. The analytic categories used in the data analysis were researcher designed and were subsequently used to comparatively analyze the curriculum objectives and the characteristics of the geometry instructional materials in the textbooks. The findings showed that understanding the features of geometric shapes through operations was emphasized in the curriculum objectives of both countries， textbooks. With regard to the mathematical content of the instructional materials, most of the problems in both textbooks were classified as ”identification and establishment of geometric shapes,” with many fewer objectives and problems classified as ”spatial geometry” Data also showed that Taiwan's textbooks used pictures along with text to present geometric problems, and intended students to conclude and discover the features and definitions of geometric shapes through problem solving, while Finland's textbooks mainly used pictures to present problems. The sequence and structure of geometric concepts in the textbooks of both countries were very consistent with the theoretical principles set forth by van Hiele on geometric thinking and development.

1. 徐偉民(2011)。數學課程實施：一位國小資深教師的個案研究。科學教育期刊，19(2)，101-122。
   連結：
2. 徐偉民、林美如(2009)。臺灣、中國與香港國小數學教科書幾何教材之內容分析。彰化師大教育學報，16，49-75。
   連結：
3. 徐偉民、徐于婷(2009)。國小數學教科書代數教材之內容分析：臺灣與香港之比較。教育實踐與研究，22(2)，67-94。
   連結：
4. 陳仁輝、楊德清(2010)。臺灣、美國與新加坡七年級代數教材之比較研究。科學教育期刊，18(1)，43-61。
   連結：
5. 楊德清、施怡真、徐偉民、尤欣涵(2011)。臺灣、美國和新加坡小一數學教材內容之比較研究。課程與教學季刊，14(2)，103-134。
   連結：
6. National Board of Education [NBE] (2004). National core curriculum for basic education 2004. Retrieved February 14, 2010, from http://www.oph.fi/english/publications/2009/national_core_curricula
7. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2007). PISA 2006 results: PISA 2006 science competencies for tomorrow's world executive summary. Retrieved February 14, 2010, from http://www.pisa.oecd.org/pages/0,2987,en_32252351_3223573111111,00.html
8. 康軒教育網（2011）。關於康軒經營成果。2011年3月23日，取自 http://oldweb.knsh.com.tw/about/about.asp?go_Sub_Topic=08 [Educational Web of Kang Hsuan (2011). About the management results of Kang Hsuan. Retrieved March 23, 2011 from http://oldweb.knsh.com.tw/about/about.asp?go_Sub_Topic=08]
9. 陳之華（2007）。學習，可以非常生活化。2010年3月7日，取自 http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/yolanda-chen/article?mid=5277&prev=6603&next=3891&1=f&fid=26 [Chen, C.-H. (2007). Learning could be connected with daily life. Retrieved March 7, 2010 from http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/yolanda-chen/article?mid=5277&prev=6603&next=3891&1=f&fid=26]
10. Burke, M. J.(ed.),Curcio, F. R.(ed.)(2000).Learning mathematics for a new century.Reston, VA:NCTM.
11. Charalambous, C. Y.,Delaney, S.,Hsu, H.-Y.,Mesa, V.(2010).A comparative analysis of the addition and subtraction of fractions in textbooks from three countries.Mathematical Thinking and Learning,12(2),117-151.
12. Grouws, D. A.(ed.)(1992).Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning.New York:Macmillan.
13. Kloosterman, P.(ed.),Lester, F.(ed.)(2004).The 1990 through 2000 mathematics assessments of the national assessment of educational progress: Results and interpretations.Reston, VA:NCTM.
14. Lester, F. K.(2007).Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning.Charlotte, NC:Information Age.
15. Lloyd, G.(2008).Curriculum use while learning to teach: One student teacher's appropriation of mathematics curriculum materials.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,39(1),63-94.
16. Mullis, I. V. S.,Martin, M. O.,Foy, P.(2008).TIMSS 2007 international mathematics report: Findings from IEA's trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades.Chestnut Hill, MA:TIMSS.
17. 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:TIMSS.
18. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics=NCTM(1989).Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA:Author.
19. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics=NCTM(2000).Principles and standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA:Author.
20. Nicol, C.,Crespo, S.(2006).Learning to teach with mathematics textbooks: How preservice teachers interpret and use curriculum materials.Educational Studies in Mathematics,62,331-355.
21. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development=OECD(2004).Learning for tomorrow's world: First results from PISA 2003.Paris:Author.
22. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development=OECD(2001).Knowledge and skills for life: First results from PISA 2000.Paris:Author.
23. Pehkonen, E.(2009).,未出版
24. Piaget, J.,Inhelder, B.,Szeminska, A.(1960).The child's conception of geometry.London:Rouledge & Kegan Paul.
25. Remillard, J.(2005).Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricular.Review of Educational Research,75(2),211-246.
26. Saarenlainen, P.(ed.)(2009).Laskutaito 4A in English.Helsinki, Finland:WSOY.
27. Saarenlainen, P.(ed.)(2009).Laskutaito 4B in English.Helsinki, Finland:WSOY.
28. Saarenlainen, P.(ed.)(2009).Laskutaito 2B in English.Helsinki, Finland:WSOY.
29. Saarenlainen, P.(ed.)(2006).Laskutaito 1B in English.Helsinki, Finland:WSOY.
30. Saarenlainen, P.(ed.)(2009).Laskutaito 3A in English.Helsinki, Finland:WSOY.
31. Saarenlainen, P.(ed.)(2009).Laskutaito 3B in English.Helsinki, Finland:WSOY.
32. Saarenlainen, P.(ed.)(2007).Laskutaito 5A in English.Helsinki, Finland:WSOY.
33. Son, J.,Senk, S. L.(2010).How reform curricula in the U.S.A. and Korea present multiplication and division of fractions.Educational Studies in Mathematics,74(2),117-142.
34. Tarr, J.,Reys, R.,Reys, B.,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.
35. van Hiele, P. M.(1986).Structure and insight: A theory of mathematics education.Orlando, FL:Academic Press.
36. Zhu, Y.,Fan, L.(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,4,609-626.
37. 王文科(2002)。教育研究法。臺北市=Taipei:五南=Wunan。
38. 王石番(1991)。傳播內容分析法：理論與實證。臺北市=Taipei:幼獅=Youth Cultural。
39. 吳麗玲、楊德清(2007)。臺灣、新加坡與美國五、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(1)，27-41。
40. 教育部(2003)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要數學學習領域。臺北市=Taipei:作者=Author。
41. 莊月嬌、張英傑(2006)。九年一貫課程小學幾何教材內容與份量之分析。國立臺北教育大學學報，19(1)，33-66。
42. 陳宜良、單維彰、洪萬生、袁媛(2005)。,臺北市=Taipei:教育部=Ministry of Education。
43. 楊瑞智編(2009)。國小數學1上。臺北市=Taipei:康軒文教事業=Kang Hsuan。
44. 楊瑞智編(2010)。國小數學4下。臺北市=Taipei:康軒文教事業=Kang Hsuan。
45. 楊瑞智編(2010)。國小數學2下。臺北市=Taipei:康軒文教事業=Kang Hsuan。
46. 楊瑞智編(2010)。國小數學5下。臺北市=Taipei:康軒文教事業=Kang Hsuan。
47. 歐用生(1994)。教育研究法。臺北市=Taipei:師大書苑=Shia Ta Book。
48. 歐用生(1991)。內容分析法。教育研究法，臺北市=Taipei:
49. 鍾靜(2005)。論數學課程近十年來之變革。教育研究月刊，133，124-134。

1. 黃幸美(Hsin-Mei E. Huang)(2021)。學生的空間測量能力及教科書的面積與體積教材之探討。教科書研究。14(1)。57-96。