题名

臺灣、芬蘭、新加坡國小數學教科書幾何教材之比較

并列篇名

A Comparison of Geometry Content in Instructional Materials of Elementary School Mathematics Textbooks in Taiwan, Finland, and Singapore

DOI

10.6481/JTR.201412_7(3).04

作者

徐偉民(Wei-Min Hsu)；柯富渝(Fu-Yu Ko)

关键词

內容分析 ； 國小數學教科書 ； 幾何教材 ； 數學問題 ； content analysis ； elementary mathematics textbooks ； geometry materials ； mathematical problems

期刊名称

教科書研究

卷期/出版年月

7卷3期（2014 / 12 / 15）

页次

101 - 141

内容语文

繁體中文
中文摘要

本研究旨在探討臺灣、芬蘭、新加坡國小數學教科書中，幾何教材內容呈現的異同。以臺灣康軒數學、芬蘭WSOY版＂LASKUTAITO in English＂、和新加坡MCE版＂My Pals are Here! Maths＂為對象，採內容分析法，以數學問題為分析單位，依問題的類型、表徵與情境來進行分析，以瞭解三國國小幾何教材呈現的特色。結果發現，三國幾何問題的類型均以無連結程序型問題為主，作數學型問題最少；問題情境以無情境　為主，問題表徵以視覺型態表徵為主。三國幾何教材較大的差異在例題的呈現上，臺灣和新加坡呈現較詳細的思考歷程，而芬蘭則直接呈現單一解法。另外，在例題與練習題的比例上，臺灣與新加坡約為1:3，而芬蘭約為1:25。
英文摘要

The purpose of this study is to compare geometry content of instructional materials in elementary mathematics textbooks of Taiwan, Finland, and Singapore. The instructional materials reviewed were ＂Kang-Hsuan Mathematics＂, the ＂WSOY LASKUTAITO in English＂, and the ＂MCE My Pals are Here! Maths＂, textbooks used to teach mathematics in Taiwan, Finland, and Singapore, respectively. Content analysis was used and mathematical problems were the unit of analysis. These were classified based on their cognitive types, representational forms, and contexts. The findings of this study show that most of the problems were classified as 'procedure without connection' with only a few problems belonging to the category of 'doing mathematics'. Most of the problem contexts and representative forms in all three countries were non-contextual problems and visual forms. The significant differences among three countries were on the presentation of example problems and the ratio between example and practice problems. On the presentation of the example problems, Taiwan and Singapore provided more detailed thinking and a guided process to help in problem solving, but brief descriptions and demonstrations were presented in Finland. The ratio between example and practice problems was about 1:3 in Taiwan and Singapore and 1:25 in Finland.
主题分类 社會科學 > 教育學
参考文献
  1. 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。
    連結：
  2. 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：
  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(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：
  5. 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：
  6. 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：
  7. 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：
  8. 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：
  9. 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：
  10. (2008)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要數學學習領域。
  11. Pehkonen, E. (2007). Problem solving in mathematics education in Finland. Retrieved from http://www.unige.ch/math/EnsMath/Rome2008/WG2/Papers/PEHKON.pdf
  12. (2003)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要數學學習領域。
  13. 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
  14. CPDD. (2006). Mathematics syllabus primary. Singapore: Ministry of Education..
  15. (2000)。國民中小學九年一貫課程暫行綱要數學學習領域。
  16. 翁秉仁（2003）。臺灣中小學數學教育的問題。九年一貫課程綱要修訂原委說明會演講稿。取自www.wfu.edu.tw/~math/course/92-s-05-05.doc
  17. Adam, G.(Ed.)(2003).Transforming: How schools and districts can support change.New York, NY:Teachers College.
  18. Barton, B.(2009).The language of mathematics: Telling mathematical tales.New York, NY:Springer.
  19. Blanton, M.,Kaput, J.(2002).Developing elementary teachers' algebra "eyes and ears": Understanding characteristics of professional development that promote generative and self-sustaining change in teacher practice.meeting of the American Educational Research Association,New Orleans, LA.:
  20. 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.
  21. Confrey, J.(Ed.),Stohl, V.(Ed.)(2004).On evaluating curricular effectiveness: Judging the quality of K-12 mathematics evaluations.Washington, DC:National Academies Press.
  22. 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.
  23. Grouws, D. A.(Ed.)(1992).Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning.New York, NY:Macmillan.
  24. Grouws, D. A.,Tarr, J. E.,Chávez, Ó.,Sears, R.,Soria, V. M.,Taylan, R. D.(2013).Curriculum and implementation effects on high school students' mathematics learning from curricula representing subject-specific and integrated content organizations.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,44(2),416-463.
  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. Janvier, C.(Ed.)(1987).Problem of presentation in teaching and learning of mathematics.Hillsdale, NJ:Laurence Erlbaum.
  28. Kheong, F. H.,Ramakrishnan, C.,Wah, L. P.(2010).My pals are here! Maths.Singapore:Marshall Cavendish Education.
  29. Kheong, F. H.,Soon, G. K.,Ramakrishnan, C.(2010).My pals are here! Maths.Singapore:Marshall Cavendish Education.
  30. 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:NCTM.
  31. Lee, Y. C.,Yong, Y. S.(2008).My pals are here! Maths.Singapore:Marshall Cavendish Education.
  32. Lesh, R.(Ed.),Lemon, S. J.(Ed.)(1992).Assesment of authentic performance in school mathematics.Washington, DC:American Association for the Advancement of Science.
  33. Lester, F. K.(Ed.)(2007).Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning.Charlotte, NC:Information Age.
  34. Ling, L. Y.(2008).My pals are here! Maths.Singapore:Marshall Cavendish Education.
  35. 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.
  36. Mullis, I. V. S.,Martin, M. O.,Foy, P.,Arora, A.(2012).TIMSS 2011 international results in mathematics.Chestnut Hill, MA:TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
  37. Mullis, I. V. S.,Martin, M. O.,Gonzales, 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 & PIRLS International Study Center.
  38. NBE(2004).National core curriculum for basic education 2004.
  39. NCTM(2000).Principles and standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA:Author.
  40. NCTM(1989).Curriculum and evaluation standard for school mathematics.Reston, VA:Author.
  41. 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.
  42. OECD(2003).Education at the glance.Paris, France:OECD publishing.
  43. OECD(2008).PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow's world.Paris, France:OECD publishing.
  44. OECD(2013).PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do-Student performance in mathematics, reading and science.Paris, France:OECD publishing.
  45. OECD(2002).Learning for tomorrow's world: First results from PISA 2003.Paris, France:OECD publishing.
  46. OECD(2001).Knowledge and skills for life: First results from PISA 2000.Paris, France:OECD publishing.
  47. OECD(2010).PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do-Student performance in reading, mathematics and science.Paris, France:OECD publishing.
  48. Posner, G. J.(1989).Making sense of diversity-The current state of curriculum studies.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,4(4),340-361.
  49. Remillard, J. T.(2005).Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula.Review of Educational Research,75(2),211-246.
  50. 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.
  51. Saarelainen, P.(2010).Laskutaito 6A in English.Helsinki, Finland:WSOY.
  52. Saarelainen, P.(2010).Laskutaito 5A in English.Helsinki, Finland:WSOY.
  53. Saarelainen, P.(2009).Laskutaito 3A in English.Helsinki, Finland:WSOY.
  54. 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.
  55. 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.
  56. 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.
  57. Tarr, J. E.,Grouws, D. A.,Chávez, Ó.,Soria, V. M.(2013).The effects of content organization and curriculum implementation on students' mathematics learning in second-year high school courses.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,44(4),683-729.
  58. Tarr, J. E.,Reys, R.,Reys, B.,Chávez, Ó.,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.
  59. van Hiele, P. M.(1986).Structure and insight: A theory of mathematics education.Orlando, FL:Academic Press.
  60. 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.
  61. 王文科(2002)。教育研究法。臺北市:五南。
  62. 王石番(1996)。傳播內容分析法：理論與實證。臺北市:幼獅文化。
  63. 左台益(2002)。Van Hiele 模式之國中幾何教材設計。中等教育，53(3)，44-53。
  64. 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。
  65. 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。
  66. 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。
  67. 黃光雄編、簡茂發編(2000)。教育研究法。臺北市:師大書苑。
  68. 楊瑞智編(2010)。國民小學數學。臺北縣:康軒。
  69. 楊瑞智編(2009)。國民小學數學。臺北縣:康軒。
  70. 楊瑞智編(2009)。國民小學數學。臺北縣:康軒。
  71. 楊瑞智編(2009)。國民小學數學。臺北縣:康軒。
被引用次数
  1. 李健恆、左台益(2017)。從教學事件分析國中數學教科書與備課用書之設計脈絡─以三角形性質單元為例。教科書研究，10(2)，67-97。
  2. 潘亞衛、李健恆、呂鳳琳、左台益(2018)。臺灣、新加坡及巴西數學教科書中數學素養內涵之比較─以畢氏定理為例。教科書研究，11(3)，33-62。
  3. 游光昭、林坤誼、周家卉(2016)。英美日科技教科書分析及其對十二年國教之啟示。教科書研究，9(1)，135-166。
  4. 袁媛,呂妍慧(2023)。臺灣國小數學CLIL教科書內容分析。課程與教學，26(1)，27-56。
  5. 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。
  6. (2022)。What Are You Doing in the Mathematics Classroom? Using a Drawing Task to Investigate Pre-service Teachers' Beliefs About Mathematics Teaching and Learning。教育學報，50(1)，31-62。
  7. (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。
  8. (2023)。國英雙語平衡程度對臺灣大學生執行功能與兩類創造力表現的影響。教育科學研究期刊，68(4)，191-225。
  9. (2024)。國中基礎學科教科書編審者對素養導向教科書設計之觀點與實踐。教科書研究，17(1)，67-109。
print cancel