中澳小学数学教材数与代数的比较研究
发布时间：2018-08-19 14:14
【摘要】：当前,数学教育国际比较已成为一个重点、热点课题,越来越多的受到国内外学者的关注。教科书作为中小学教育的载体,在一定层面上比较真实的反映了教学内容及其设计理念。教科书的质量优劣,直接影响学生的“学”和教师的“教”,因此,加强对教科书的研究,提高教科书的编写水平具有重要的理论意义。“数与代数”是中澳小学数学课程的主干。目前我国对于澳大利亚小学数学课程、教科书的研究数量不多,而且现有的研究也只是在宏观层面,尚未深入到教材微观层面进行深入研究。本研究从教材层面出发,以中国的人教版和澳大利亚的Mathematics两套小学教材为例,以《标准》为依托,用用内容分析法和比较法,采用史宁中,孔凡哲的难度系数模型,从我国《课程标准》与澳大利亚《澳大利亚维多利亚洲小学数学课程标准》的比较入手,分别从宏观和微观两个角度对中澳教科书进行比较,并以微观比较为主。最后,基于以上宏观和微观两个层面上的比较结论,总结两国教材内容编写的优缺点,并对今后我国教材的编写提出改进性建议。
[Abstract]:At present, the international comparison of mathematics education has become an important and hot topic, and more scholars at home and abroad pay attention to it. As the carrier of primary and secondary education, textbooks reflect the teaching content and design idea in a certain level. The quality of textbooks has a direct impact on students'"learning" and teachers'"teaching". Therefore, it is of great theoretical significance to strengthen the study of textbooks and improve the level of textbook compilation. Numbers and Algebra are the backbone of mathematics curriculum in Chinese and Australian primary schools. At present, the number of textbooks for the mathematics curriculum in primary schools in Australia is not much, and the existing research is only on the macro level, but not on the micro level of teaching materials. This study starts from the teaching material level, takes two sets of primary school textbooks of Chinese people's Education Edition and Australia's Mathematics as an example, takes "Standard" as the basis, uses the content analysis method and the comparative method, and adopts the difficulty coefficient model of Shi Ningzhong, Kong Fanzhe. Starting from the comparison between China's Curriculum Standard and Australia's Victorian Primary School Mathematics Curriculum Standard, this paper compares Chinese and Australian textbooks from macro and micro perspectives, with microscopic comparison as the main point of view. Finally, based on the above comparative conclusions at macro and micro levels, the author summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the compilation of textbooks in the two countries, and puts forward some suggestions for improving the compilation of textbooks in our country in the future.
【学位授予单位】：贵州师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：G623.5
本文编号：2191902
[Abstract]:At present, the international comparison of mathematics education has become an important and hot topic, and more scholars at home and abroad pay attention to it. As the carrier of primary and secondary education, textbooks reflect the teaching content and design idea in a certain level. The quality of textbooks has a direct impact on students'"learning" and teachers'"teaching". Therefore, it is of great theoretical significance to strengthen the study of textbooks and improve the level of textbook compilation. Numbers and Algebra are the backbone of mathematics curriculum in Chinese and Australian primary schools. At present, the number of textbooks for the mathematics curriculum in primary schools in Australia is not much, and the existing research is only on the macro level, but not on the micro level of teaching materials. This study starts from the teaching material level, takes two sets of primary school textbooks of Chinese people's Education Edition and Australia's Mathematics as an example, takes "Standard" as the basis, uses the content analysis method and the comparative method, and adopts the difficulty coefficient model of Shi Ningzhong, Kong Fanzhe. Starting from the comparison between China's Curriculum Standard and Australia's Victorian Primary School Mathematics Curriculum Standard, this paper compares Chinese and Australian textbooks from macro and micro perspectives, with microscopic comparison as the main point of view. Finally, based on the above comparative conclusions at macro and micro levels, the author summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the compilation of textbooks in the two countries, and puts forward some suggestions for improving the compilation of textbooks in our country in the future.
【学位授予单位】：贵州师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：G623.5
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前2条
1 史宁中,孔凡哲,李淑文;课程难度模型:我国义务教育几何课程难度的对比[J];东北师大学报;2005年06期
2 王丹;;中国澳大利亚教育研究30年综述[J];大众文艺;2011年08期
，本文编号：2191902
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/jiaoyulunwen/xiaoxuejiaoyu/2191902.html
