臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：臺灣與芬蘭國小數學教科書分數教材內容之分析
書刊名：課程與教學
作者：徐偉民 引用關係／黃皇元
作者(外文)：Hsu, Wei-min／Huang, Huang-yuan
出版日期：2012
卷期：15:3
頁次：頁75-108
主題關鍵詞：內容分析；分數教材；數學教科書；Content analysis；Fraction instructional material；Mathematics textbook
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(3) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:58
  • 點閱點閱:50
本研究旨在探討臺灣部編版與芬蘭WSOY版Laskutaito in English國小數學教科書分數教材內容的異同。以「問題」為分析單位，採內容分析法探討兩國分數教材內容呈現的異同。研究發現，在問題的數量上，芬蘭數學問題數量是臺灣的兩倍，提供學生較多的學習機會；在分數主題比重與概念呈現上，兩國均以「分數基本定義」所佔比重最高，且以螺旋式的方式呈現，臺灣大部分分數概念比芬蘭早一年呈現；在問題呈現方式上，兩國分數問題的表徵形式以「數學型態」最多，問題的知識屬性以「程序性知識」最多，但芬蘭在數學型態及程序性知識的比重上均超過五成，臺灣則比重分佈較平均，而且臺灣例題呈現多元的解題思考和歷程，芬蘭例題則以定義且算式為主的方式來呈現。
The purposes of this study were to compare the similarities and differences of fraction instructional materials used at the elementary school level in Taiwan and Finland. The instructional materials reviewed in this study were the official version textbooks used in Taiwan, and the WSOY version textbooks used in Finland. The content analysis was used as methodology and mathematics problems were used as analytic units. The analytic categories of fraction instructional materials were designed and used to analyze the characteristics and differences of fraction concepts represented in the textbooks between the two countries. The findings of this study revealed that the number of fraction tasks in Finland textbooks were double that of Taiwan textbooks. Finland provided more problem-solving opportunity for students than Taiwan did. Regarding the fraction problems presenting, we found most of the problems were classified as 'the basic definition of fraction' in two country textbooks, and presented in a spiral way. Most fraction concepts in Taiwan were presented one year earlier than Finland. Most problems were presented in mathematics form and focused on procedure practice in the two sets of textbooks. Compared with Taiwan textbooks, more problems in Finland textbooks focused on symbol representation and procedure using. Otherwise, the example problem was presented in different ways in the two sets of textbooks: in Taiwan, the examples were usually presented in several thinking process and representations that students might have, but in Finland, they were only presented with examples in a single or a definitive way to students.
期刊論文
1.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。  new window
2.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。  new window
3.Tarr, J. E.、Reys, R. E.、Reys, B. J.、Chávez, Ó.、Shih, J.、Osterlind, S. J.(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。  new window
4.莊月嬌、張英傑(200603)。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. 數理科技教育類，19(1)，33-66。new window  延伸查詢new window
5.鍾靜(20050500)。論數學課程近十年之變革。教育研究月刊，133，124-134。new window  延伸查詢new window
6.吳麗玲、楊德清(20070300)。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。  延伸查詢new window
7.Post, T. R.、Behr, M. J.、Wachsmuth, I.、Lesh, R.(1984)。Order and Equivalence of rational number: A Clinical Teaching experiment。Journal for Research in Mathematics Education，15(5)，323-341。  new window
8.徐偉民、林美如(20091200)。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，16，47-73。new window  延伸查詢new window
9.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。  new window
10.徐偉民(20110400)。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。new window  延伸查詢new window
11.林碧珍(19901200)。從圖形表徵與符號表徵之間的轉換探討國小學生的分數概念。新竹師院學報，4，295-347。new window  延伸查詢new window
12.徐偉民、徐于婷(20091200)。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。new window  延伸查詢new window
13.Nicol, C. C.、Crespo, S. M.(2006)。Learning to teach with mathematics textbooks: How preservice teachers interpret and use curriculum materials。Educational Studies in Mathematics，62(3)，331-355。  new window
14.徐偉民(20110600)。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。new window  延伸查詢new window
15.楊德清、施怡真、徐偉民、尤欣涵(20110400)。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，14(2)，103-134。new window  延伸查詢new window
16.陳仁輝、楊德清(20100200)。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。new window  延伸查詢new window
17.呂玉琴(1991)。分數槪念文獻探討。臺北師院學報，4，573-605。  延伸查詢new window
18.呂玉琴(1998)。國小教師分數教學之相關知識硏究。臺北師院學報，11，393-438。  延伸查詢new window
19.洪素敏、楊德清(2002)。創意教學〜分數的補救教學。科學教育研究與發展季刊，29，33-52。  延伸查詢new window
20.陳梅生、吳德邦(1986)。我國與美國小學數學教育比較硏究：美國波斯頓小學數學課程與我國小學數學課程比較。師大學報，31，565-602。new window  延伸查詢new window
21.鄭國順、牟中原(2005)。由國民中小學教科書部編與民編倂行：談部編本教科書硏發編輯理念與特色。硏習資訊，22(4)，67-69。  延伸查詢new window
22.魏曼依(2007)。理解芬蘭--從國民教育、國家核心課程到PISA測驗成果。中等教育，59(2)，52-69。  延伸查詢new window
23.Malaty, G..(2007)。What are the reasons behind the success of Finland in PISA?。Matematik I Norden Finland，29(6)，4-10。  new window
24.Son, J.、Senk, S. L.(2010)。How Reform Curricuk in the USA and Korea Present Multiplication and Division of Fractions。Educational Studies in Mathematics，74(2)，117-142。  new window
25.Stigler, J. W.、Hiebert, J.(2004)。Improving mathematics teaching。Educational Leadership，61(5)，12-17。  new window
會議論文
1.Törnroos, J.(2004)。Mathematics textbooks, opportunity to learn and achievement。The ICME-10 Discussion Group 14。Copenhagen。  new window
研究報告
1.Hiebert, J.、Gallimore, R.、Garnier, H.、Givvin, K.、Hollingsworth, H.、Jacobs, J.(2003)。Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study (計畫編號：NCES 2003-013)。Washington, DC：U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics。  new window
2.徐偉民(2010)。影響國小教師數學課程實施之硏究。  延伸查詢new window
3.陳宜良、單維彰、洪萬生、袁媛(2005)。中小學數學科數學綱要評估與發展硏究報告書。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
學位論文
1.蔡麗蓉(2003)。國小數學科審定本教科書分數教材之內容分析(碩士論文)。臺中師範學院。  延伸查詢new window
2.尤欣涵(2010)。臺灣、美國與新加坡中學階段幾何教材內容之分析比較--以三角形爲例。國立嘉義大學，嘉義。  延伸查詢new window
3.楊明憬(2008)。臺灣與美國國小二到三年級數學乘法教材之硏究。國立嘉義大學，嘉義。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.教育部(2003)。國民中學九年一貫課程綱要--數學學習領域。臺北市：教育部。  延伸查詢new window
2.OECD(2010)。PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do: Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science。OECD Publishing。  new window
3.歐用生(1994)。教育硏究法。臺北市：師大書苑。  延伸查詢new window
4.王文科(1999)。教育研究法--民族誌研究。臺北：五南圖書出版公司。  延伸查詢new window
5.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(2004)。Learning for tomorrow's world: First results from PISA 2003。Paris：Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development。  new window
6.OECD(2001)。Knowledge and Skills for Life: First result from PISA 2000, Programme for International Student Assessment。Paris：OECD Publications。  new window
7.蔣治邦、陳竹村、林淑君、陳俊瑜(2001)。國小數學教材分析--分數的數概念與運算。國立教育研究院籌備處。  延伸查詢new window
8.王石番(1996)。傳播內容分析法--理論與實證。台北：幼獅。  延伸查詢new window
9.Artzt, A. F.、Armour-Thomas, E.(2002)。Becoming a reflective mathematics teacher: A guide for observations and self-assessment。Mahwah, NJ：Lawrence Erlbaum。  new window
10.National Council of Teachers of Mathematics(1989)。Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics。Reston, VA：National Council of Teachers of Mathematics。  new window
11.呂玉琴、李源順、劉曼麗、吳毓瑩(2009)。國小分數與小數的教學、學習與評量。臺北。new window  延伸查詢new window
12.國家教育硏究院籌備處主編(2010)。國民小學數學第10冊。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
13.國家教育硏究院籌備處主編(2010)。國民小學數學第8冊。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
14.劉秋木(2002)。國小數學科教學硏究。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
15.Wiske, M. S.(2005)。Teaching for understanding with technology。San Francisco, LA：Jossey-Bass。  new window
16.Kennedy, L. M.、Tipps, S.(2000)。Guiding children's learning of mathematics。Belmont, CA。  new window
17.Dickson, L.、Brown, M.、Gibson, O.(1984)。Children Learning Mathematics。Eastbourne, East Sussex。  new window
18.National Mathematics Advisory Panel(2008)。Foundation for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisoiy。Washington, D. C.。  new window
19.Pia Saarelainen(2009)。Laskutaito 3B in English。Helsinki。  new window
20.Pia Saarelainen(2009)。Laskutaito 4B in English。Helsinki。  new window
21.Pia Saarelainen(2009)。Laskutaito 5B in English。Helsinki。  new window
22.Pia Saarelainen(2009)。Laskutaito 6B in English。Helsinki。  new window
23.林素微(2008)。臺灣學生數學素養的表現。臺灣參加PISA 2006成果報告。花蓮。  延伸查詢new window
24.Behr, M. J.、Post, T. R.(1988)。Teaching rational number and decimal concepts。Teaching mathematics in grade K-8。Boston, MA。  new window
25.Kieren, T. E.(1993)。Rational and fractional numbers: From quotient fields to recursive understanding。Rational numbers: An integration of research。Hillsdale, NJ。  new window
其他
1.陳之華(2007)。學習，可以非常生活化，http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/yolanda-chen/article?mid=5277&prev=6603&next=3891&1=f&fid=26， 20100307。  new window
2.翰林我的網(2010)。99學年度部編本數學國小教材簡介，http://www.worldone.com.tw/page.do?pageId=20&chanelTwoNuinber=39， 20100816。  延伸查詢new window
3.National Board of Education(2004)。National core curriculum for basic education 2004，http://www.oph.fi/english/publications/2009/national_core_curricula， 2010/02/14。  new window
4.Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development(2007)。PISA 2006 results: PISA 2006 science competencies for tomorrow's world executive summary，http://www.pisa.oecd.org/pages/0,2987,en_32252351_322357311111l,00.html， 20100214。  new window
5.Pehkonen, E.(2009)。Problem solving in mathematics education in Finland，http://www.unige.ch/math/EnsMath/Rome2008/WG2/Papers/PEHKON.pdf， 20091116。  new window
圖書論文
1.National Research Council(2004)。Framework for evaluating curricular effectiveness。On evaluating curricular effectiveness: Judging the quality of K-12 mathematics evaluations。Washington, DC：National Academies Press。  new window
2.Stein, M. K.、Remillard, J.、Smith, M. S.(2007)。How curriculum influences student learning。Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning。Information Age。  new window
3.Kieren, T. E.(1976)。On the Mathematical, Cognitive and Instructional Foundations of Rational Numbers。Number and measurement:Papers from a Research Workshop。Columbus, OH：ERIC/SMEAC。  new window
4.Lesh, R.、Post, T.、Behr, M.(1987)。Representations and translations among representations in mathematics learning and problem solving。Problems of Representation in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics。Hillsdale, New Jersey：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates。  new window
5.Behr, M. J.、Harel, G.、Post, T.、Lesh, R.(1992)。Rational number, ratio, and proportion。Handbook of research on mathematical teaching and learning。New York：Macmillan Publishing Company。  new window
6.歐用生(2000)。內容分析法。教育研究法。臺北市：師大書苑。  延伸查詢new window
7.Grouws, D. A.、Smith, M. S.、Sztajn, P.(2004)。The preparation and teaching practice of U. S. Mathematics teachers: Grades 4 and 8。The 1990 through 2000 mathematics assessments of the National Assessment of Educational Progress: Results and interpretations。Reston, VA：NCTM。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：617（臺灣：605，外國：12） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2000451 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67807446
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上