臺灣、芬蘭、新加坡國小數學教科書代數教材之比較

A Comparison of Algebra Content in Instructional Materials in Elementary School Mathematic Textbooks of Taiwan, Finland and Singapore

10.6481/JTR.201308_6(2).03

徐偉民(Wei-Min Hsu)；曾于珏(Yu-Jiue Tseng)

內容分析法 ； 代數 ； 國小數學教科書 ； 數學問題 ； content analysis ； algebra ； elementary mathematics textbook ； mathematics problem

教科書研究

6卷2期（2013 / 08 / 15）

69 - 103

繁體中文

本研究以臺灣、芬蘭與新加坡國小數學教科書為對象，探討三國教科書中代數教材呈現的異同。研究對象為臺灣康軒版《數學》、芬蘭WSOY版“LASKUTAITO in English”、和新加坡MCE版“My Pals are Here! Maths”等三國使用最普及的教科書。本研究以「數學問題」為單位，採用內容分析法，依據數學問題的類型、情境和表徵形式來進行分析比較。結果發現，三國代數問題所占的比例均不高，約占7％至13％之間，臺灣和新加坡在例題的說明上較詳盡，芬蘭則以簡潔的方式呈現。三國在問題類型的分布上有一致的現象，都明顯地偏重無連結程序的問題；在問題情境上，臺灣代數問題以情境問題為主，芬蘭和新加坡則是以無情境問題為主；在問題表徵形式上，臺灣以文字型態的表徵為主，而芬蘭和新加坡都是以數學型態的表徵為主。

This study compared the algebra content of instructional materials in the most popular elementary school mathematics textbook series used in Taiwan, Finland and Singapore. The mathematics instructional materials reviewed were KangHsuan ＂Mathematics＂, the WSOY ＂LASKUTAITO in English＂, the MCE ＂My Pals are Here! Maths＂ used in Taiwan, Finland, and Singapore, respectively. The research method employed was content analysis. Mathematical problems were the unit of analysis and they were classified based on their cognitive types, contexts and representational forms. Findings showed that the percentage of algebra problems presented in the textbooks in these three countries was not high, only about 7% to 13%. In sample problems, Taiwan and Singapore presented a detailed problem-solving process, but Finland only offered brief descriptions or definitions. We found the ratio of different types of problems in textbooks to be similar in the three countries with most of the problems classified as 'procedure without connection' in each country. As to problem contexts, most algebra problems in Taiwan were contextual problems in nature, but in Finland and Singapore, were classified as non-contextual problems. When the representational forms of problems was examined, we found that most problems were presented in word form in Taiwan, but most frequently in a purely mathematical form in Finland and Singapore.

1. 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。
   連結：
2. 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。
   連結：
3. 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。
   連結：
4. 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：
5. 徐偉民、黃皇元(2012)。臺灣與芬蘭國小數學教科書分數教材內容之分析。課程與教學季刊，15(3)，75-108。
   連結：
6. 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。科學教育學刊，18(1)，43-61。
   連結：
7. 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：
8. 康軒教育網（2011）。關於康軒經營成果。取自http://www.knsh.com.tw/about/about.asp?go_Sub_Topic=08
9. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010).PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/document/61/0,3746,en_32252351_32235731_46567613_1_1_1_1,00.html
10. 國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要數學學習領域（2003）。
11. 康軒教育網（2007）。康軒數學教育理念。取自http://www.knsh.com.tw/
12. National Board of Education. (2004). National core curriculum for basic education 2004. Retrieved from http://www.oph.fi/english/publications/2009/national_core_curricula
13. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). PISA 2006 results: PISA 2006 science competencies fortomorrow's world executive summary. Retrieved from http://www.pisa.oecd.org/pages/0,2987,en_32252351_32235731_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
14. Artzt, A.,Armour-Thomas, E.(2002).Becoming a reflective mathematics teacher: A guide for observations and self-assessment.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Barton, B.(2009).The language of mathematics: Telling mathematical tales.New York, NY:Springer.
16. Chambliss, M. J.,Calfee, R. C.(1998).Textbooks for learning.London, UK:Blackwell.
17. 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.
18. Confrey, J.(Ed.),Stohl, V.(Ed.)(2004).On evaluating curricular effectiveness: Judging the quality of K-12 mathematics evaluations.Washington, DC:National Academies Press.
19. Curriculum Planning and Development Division(2006).Mathematics syllabus primary.Singapore:Ministry of Education.
20. D''Ambrosio, U.(1985).Ethnomathematics and its place in the history and pedagogy of mathematics.For the Learning of Mathematics,5(1),44-48.
21. Fan, L.(Ed.),Wong, N. Y.(Ed.),Cai, J.(Ed.),Li, S.(Ed.)(2004).How Chinese learn mathematics: Perspectives from insiders.Singapore:World Scientific.
22. Fong, H. K.,Gan, K. S.,Ramakrishnan, C.(2010).My Pals are Here! Maths 6A.Singapore:Marshall Cavendish Education.
23. Gamoran, A.(Ed.),Anderson, C. W.(Ed.),Quiroz, P. A.(Ed.),Secada, W.G.(Ed.),Williams, T.(Ed.),Ashmann, S.(Ed.)(2003).Teaching in math and science: How schools and districts can support change.New York, NY:Teachers College Press.
24. Grouws, D. A.(Ed.)(1992).Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning.New York, NY:Macmillan.
25. Gutstein, E.(2003).Teaching and learning mathematics for social justice in an urban Latino school.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,34(1),37-73.
26. Henningsen, M.,Stein, M. K.(1997).Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhabit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,28(5),524-549.
27. Herscovics, N.,Linchevski, L.(1994).A cognitive gap between arithmetic and algebra.Educational Studies in Mathematics,27,59-78.
28. Janvier, C.(Ed.)(1987).Problem of presentation in teaching and learning of mathematics.Hillsdale, NJ:Laurence Erlbaum.
29. Kloosterman, P.(Ed.),Lester, F. K.(Ed.)(2004).Results and interpretations of the 1990 through 2000 mathematics assessment of the national assessment of educational progress.Reston, VA:National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
30. Lesh, R.,Lamon, S. J.(1992).Assessment of authentic performance in school mathematics.Washington, DC:American Association for the Advancement of Science.
31. Lester, F. K.(Ed.)(2007).Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning.Charlotte, NC:Information Age.
32. Lloyd, G. M.(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.
33. 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 & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
34. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics(2000).Principles and standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA:Author.
35. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics(1989).Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA:Author.
36. 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.
37. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development(2002).Learning for tomorrow's world: First results from PISA 2003.Paris, France:Author.
38. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development(2003).Education at the glance.Paris, France:Author.
39. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development(2001).Knowledge and skills for life: First results from PISA 2000.Paris, France:Author.
40. Pimm, D.(1995).Symbols and meanings in school mathematics.New York, NY:Routledge.
41. Porter, A. C.(Ed.),Gamoran, A.(Ed.)(2002).Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of educational achievement.Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
42. Raymond, A.,Leinenbach, M.(2000).Collaborative action research on the learning and teaching of algebra: A story of one mathematics teacher's development.Educational Studies in Mathematics,41(3),283-307.
43. Remillard, J. T.(2005).Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula.Review of Educational Research,75(2),211-246.
44. Rodriguez, A. J.(Ed.),Kitchen, R. S.(Ed.)(2005).Preparing mathematics and science teachers for diverse classrooms: Promising strategies for transformative pedagogy.Mahwah, NJ:Laurence Erlbaum.
45. Saarelainen, P. (Ed.)(2010).Laskutaito 6A in English.Helsinki, Finland:WSOY.
46. Silver, E. A.,Mesa, V. M.,Morris, K. A.,Star, J. R.,Benken, B. M.(2009).Teaching mathematics for understanding: An analysis of lessons submitted by teachers seeking NBPTS certification.American Educational Research Journal,46(2),501-531.
47. Smith, J. P.,Phillips, E. A.(2000).Listening to middle school students' algebra thinking.Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School,6(3),156-161.
48. 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.
49. Star, J. R.,Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A.,Smith, J. P.(2000).Algebraic concepts: What's really new in new curricula?.Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School,5(7),446-451.
50. Stein, M. K.,Smith, M. S.,Henningsen, M. A.,Silver, E. A.(2000).Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development.New York, NY:Teachers College Press.
51. Törnroos, J.(2004).Mathematics textbooks, opportunity to learn and achievement.meeting of the ICME-10 Discussion Group 14,Copenhagen, Denmark:
52. Wiske, M. S.(Ed.)(1998).Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice.San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
53. Zhu, Y.,Fan, L.(2006).Focus on the representation of problem types 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.
54. 王文科(2002)。教育研究法。臺北市:五南。
55. 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)，27-40。
56. 林碧珍、蔡文煥(2003)。四年級學生在國際教育成就調查試測的數學成就表現。科學教育月刊，258，2-20。
57. 徐偉民、董修齊(2012)。臺灣與芬蘭國小數學幾何教材內容之分析。當代教育研究季刊，20(3)，39-86。
58. 徐曉慧(2010)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北市，國立臺北教育大學數學教育研究所。
59. 張琇涵(2006)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。桃園縣，國立中央大學數學研究所。
60. 陳之華(2010)。成就每一個孩子：從芬蘭到臺北，陳之華的教育觀察筆記。臺北市:天下雜誌。
61. 黃光雄編、簡茂發編(2000)。教育研究法。臺北市:師大書苑。
62. 楊瑞智編(2009)。國民小學數學。臺北縣:康軒。

1. 趙珮晴,曾建銘,吳慧珉(2019)。臺灣學生數學學習內容表現之探討：來自TASA和TIMSS的跨資料庫比較。測驗學刊，66(1)，27-50。
2. 鍾靜、林鳴芳、白玉如(2014)。以不同觀點分析問題探討芬蘭國小數學教科書。教科書研究，7(1)，31-79。
3. (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。
4. (2023)。芬蘭民族地景鄉村意象之潛在課程：以小學數學教科書為例。臺灣教育社會學研究，23(1)，83-142。