跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.236.84.188) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/01 18:13
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:蕭瑞元
研究生(外文):Hsiao jui yuan
論文名稱:台灣、大陸與新加坡小學數學教科書 數與量內容之研究
論文名稱(外文):The Study of Number and Measurement Contents in the Elementary Mathematics Textbooks among Taiwan, China, and Singapore
指導教授:楊德清楊德清引用關係
指導教授(外文):Yang Der-Ching
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立嘉義大學
系所名稱:數理教育研究所
學門:教育學門
學類:普通科目教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
畢業學年度:102
語文別:中文
論文頁數:200
中文關鍵詞:數與量數學教科書表徵型態圖形表徵
外文關鍵詞:Number and measureMathematics textbookRepresentational types
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:275
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:30
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
本研究採用內容分析法,探討台灣「南一版」、大陸「人民教育版」及新加坡「大家一起學數學版」國小數學教科書中,數與量內容及編排順序、佈題呈現方式(情境與非情境)與表徵方式(數學型態、文字型態、視覺型態、聯合型態)、以及圖形表徵之差異性。研究結果發現:1. 三版教科書台灣、大陸及新加坡皆較重視「數」的課程,在比重上新加坡最重視「數量基本概念」的培養,大陸重視的是「四則運算」,台灣則是均衡發展。2. 三版教科書在「情境佈題」比例上並沒有顯著的差異,但內容特色確有明顯的差異。佈題表徵方面,三版皆較注重文字表徵的呈現,其餘表徵各有各的重視比例。3.新加坡「大家一起學數學」在圖形表徵的手法上較其他兩版豐富,大陸「人教版」透過人物圖形解說的表徵設計比其他兩版多。三版教科書其實各有各的優缺點,透過互相學習,勢必可以對台灣數學教科書及學生的學習上有所助益。
This study applied the content analysis method to compare the differences of number and measurement contents in the elementary mathematics textbooks among Nani in Taiwan, Mainlan China, and My Pals are Here ! Maths in Singapore. The results show that the number &; measurement contents and the arrangement order for the three textbooks have differences. Three textbooks put more emphasis on number contents than measurement contents. Moreover, the orders of the problems for three countries are different. The Nani textbooks emphasize on balanced development; The Mainland China textbooks emphasize on four basic operation; The My Pals are Here ! Maths textbooks emphasize on number of basic concepts. Representational types for three textbooks all emphasize on verbal form, other representational types are different. Pictorial representational problems in My Pals are Here ! Maths textbooks are richer than the other two textbooks. The design of problems in Mainland China textbooks adopted more characters to describe the problems than the other two countries. Finally, each textbook has their own advantages and disadvantages. It would be helpful to our mathematics textbooks and students’ learning through learning from each other.
中文摘要.................i
英文摘要.................ii
目次.................vi
表次.................viii
圖次.................xv
第一章 緒論
第一節 研究背景與動機.................1
第二節 研究目的.................4
第三節 研究問題.................4
第四節 名詞釋義.................4
第五節 研究範圍與限制.................6
第二章 文獻探討
第一節 台灣、大陸與新加坡課程綱要內容分析.................7
第二節 台灣、大陸與新加坡教科書數與量內容分析.................17
第三節 國、內外數與量相關研究.................33
第三章 研究方法
第一節 研究法.................41
第二節 研究對象.................44
第三節 類目建構與資料處理.................47
第四節 研究流程.................59
第四章 研究結果與討論
第一節 教材內容及編排順序之比較分析.................62
第二節 佈題之比較分析.................113
第三節 圖形表徵之比較分析.................139
第五章 結論與建議
第一節 結論.................150
第二節 建議.................157
參考文獻.................160
中文部份.................160
外文部份.................167

參考文獻
中文部份
中華人民共和國教育部(2011)。全日制義務教育數學課程標準。北京:北京師範大學基礎教育課程研究中心。
中華網(2012)。新加坡教科書情況與實錄。2013年10月21日,取自:http://big5.china.com/gate/big5/aiyingyu.blog.china.com/201209/10275288.html。
尤欣涵(2010)。台灣、美國與新加坡中學階段幾何教材內容之分析比較-以三角形為例。未出版之碩士論文,國立嘉義大學數學教育研究所,嘉義。
王文科(2002)。教育研究法。台北:五南。
王石番(1991)。傳播內容分析法─理論與實證。台北:幼獅出版社。
王石番(1996)。傳播內容分析法─理論與論證(第二版)。台北:幼獅。
吳宛儒、楊德清(2006)。數常識情境活動融入國小三年級數學科教學之研究。未出版之碩士論文,國立嘉義大學數學教育研究所,嘉義。
吳麗玲(2006)。台灣、美國與新加坡國小五、六年級分數教材內容之分析比較。國立嘉義大學數學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義。
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,36(1),27-40。
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。台北:五南。
李秀芬、楊瑞智(2008)。加減法情境教材設計與應用在數學教學之研究。臺北市立教育大學數學資訊教育學系碩士班碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
林俊吉、吳毓瑩、呂玉琴(2009)。分數概念題庫之建立:跨學習階段的校準與測量。教育研究與發展期刊,5(4),187-218。
林美如、徐偉民(2007)。中國與台灣小學教科書幾何教材之分析。載於中華民國課程與教學學會(主編),課程與教學2007年年刊:教科書制度與影響,215-257。台北:五南。
南一文教事業(2013a)。南一國小數學課本第一冊。台南:南一文教集團。
南一文教事業(2013b)。南一國小數學課本第二冊。台南:南一文教集團。
南一文教事業(2013c)。南一國小數學課本第三冊。台南:南一文教集團。
南一文教事業(2013d)。南一國小數學課本第四冊。台南:南一文教集團。
南一文教事業(2013e)。南一國小數學課本第五冊。台南:南一文教集團。
南一文教事業(2013f)。南一國小數學課本第六冊。台南:南一文教集團。
南一文教事業(2013g)。南一國小數學課本第七冊。台南:南一文教集團。
南一文教事業(2013h)。南一國小數學課本第八冊。台南:南一文教集團。
南一文教事業(2013i)。南一國小數學課本第九冊。台南:南一文教集團。
南一文教事業(2013j)。南一國小數學課本第十冊。台南:南一文教集團。
南一文教事業(2013k)。南一國小數學課本第十一冊。台南:南一文教集團。
南一文教事業(2013l)。南一國小數學課本第十二冊。台南:南一文教集團。
南一文教事業(2013m)。南一數學教育理念。線上檢索日期:2013年10月30日,取自:http://www.nani.com.tw/nani/2007naniweb/NANI_index.jsp
洛杉磯辦事處教育組(2009)。新加坡向美國教育界宣傳數學教科書 。華盛頓郵報。線上檢索日期:2013年10月21日,取自:http://epaper.edu.tw/windows.aspx?windows_sn=3351
胡蕙芬(2009)。運用問題導向學習的促進者在數學學習領域課程小組之行動研究。國立臺北教育大學數學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
翁玟綺、楊德清(2010)。台灣與芬蘭國小代數教材之比較分析。國立嘉義大學數學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義。
徐偉民、徐于婷(2009)。國小數學教科書代數教材之內容分析:台灣與香港之比較。教育實踐與研究,22(2),67-94。
徐偉民、張敬苓(2008)。台灣不同時期國小數學課程能力指標之比較分析。台灣數學教師電子期刊,14,27-47。
秦麗花(2007)。數學閱讀指導的理論與實務。台北市:洪葉文化事業有限公司。
張熙明(2004)。國小五年級學童分數表徵教學之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立嘉義大學,嘉義市。
教育部(2008)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。台北:教育部。
莊凱安(2002)。問題表徵與解題能力之相關性研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺中師範學院教育測驗統計研究所,臺中。
許良榮(1996)。圖形與科學課文學習關係的探討。教育研究資訊,4,121-131 頁。
郭生玉(2005)。心理與教育研究法。台北:精華。
陳仁輝、楊德清(2010)。台灣、美國與新加坡國中一年級代數教材內容之分析比較。科學教育學刊,18(1),43-61。
陳嘉皇(2009)。影響學童不同數學表徵樣式一般化表現因素之研究。崑山科技大學人文暨社會科學學報創刊號,59-82。
陳錦廣(2008)。國小「自然與生活科技」教科書插圖之內容分析(未出版之碩士論文)。國立中正大學,嘉義縣。
甯自強(1997)。新課程對乘法啟蒙教材的處理。國民小學數學科新 課程概說(低年級)。台灣省國民學校教師研習會。
黃光雄、簡茂發(1993)。教育研究法。台北:師大書苑。
黃皇元(2011)。台灣與芬蘭國小數學教科書分數教材內容之分析比較。國立屏東教育大學數理教育研究所,屏東縣。
黃郁雯(2005)。情境式問題導向融入教學對國小六年級學童科學概念及科學態度之影響(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺北師範學院,臺北市。
黃雅玲、楊德清(2010)。真實情境活動融入國小五年級數常識教學之研究-以判斷答案的合理性為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立嘉義大學,嘉義。
黃瑞茵(2008)。國小國語教科書編排設計之研究─以臺灣與日本教科書為例。私立中原大學商業設計研究所碩士學位論文,桃園。
黃媺恬(2010)。運用圖像表徵於情境式分數課程之補救教學研究。未出版之碩士論文,國立嘉義大學,嘉義。
黃麗寶(2010)。以圖示法進行分數除法教學之成效探討。未出版之碩士論文,國立臺南大學數學教育研究所,臺南。
楊國揚、王立心(2010)。中國大陸教科書及學術圖書出版制度。線上檢索日期:2013年10月21日。網址:http://www.naer.edu.tw/ezfiles/0/1000/img/30/2010_6_achievement.pdf
楊德清(2011)。數學連結之教與學的理論與實務。台中:天空數位圖書。
楊德清、洪素敏(2003)。比較分數大小~從具體、半具體至抽象符號表徵之教學行動研究。南師學報,37(2),75-103。
楊德清、施怡真、徐偉民、尤欣涵 (2011)。台灣、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。
楊德清、陳仁輝 (2011)。台灣、美國和新加坡三個七年級代數課程發展學生數學能力方式之研究。科學教育學刊,19(1),43-61。
維基百科(2013)。內容分析法。線上檢索日期:2013年10月21日。網址:http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%85%A7%E5%AE%B9%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90%E6%B3%95
歐用生(1997)。教育研究法。台北:師大書院。
課程教材研究所小學數學課程教材研究開發中心(2006a)。義務教育課程標準實驗教科書數學一年級上冊。北京:人民教育出版社。
課程教材研究所小學數學課程教材研究開發中心(2006b)。義務教育課程標準實驗教科書數學一年級下冊。北京:人民教育出版社。
課程教材研究所小學數學課程教材研究開發中心(2006c)。義務教育課程標準實驗教科書數學二年級上冊。北京:人民教育出版社。
課程教材研究所小學數學課程教材研究開發中心(2006d)。義務教育課程標準實驗教科書數學二年級下冊。北京:人民教育出版社。
課程教材研究所小學數學課程教材研究開發中心(2006e)。義務教育課程標準實驗教科書數學三年級上冊。北京:人民教育出版社。
課程教材研究所小學數學課程教材研究開發中心(2006f)。義務教育課程標準實驗教科書數學三年級下冊。北京:人民教育出版社。
課程教材研究所小學數學課程教材研究開發中心(2006g)。義務教育課程標準實驗教科書數學四年級上冊。北京:人民教育出版社。
課程教材研究所小學數學課程教材研究開發中心(2006h)。義務教育課程標準實驗教科書數學四年級下冊。北京:人民教育出版社。
課程教材研究所小學數學課程教材研究開發中心(2006i)。義務教育課程標準實驗教科書數學五年級上冊。北京:人民教育出版社。
課程教材研究所小學數學課程教材研究開發中心(2006j)。義務教育課程標準實驗教科書數學五年級下冊。北京:人民教育出版社。
課程教材研究所小學數學課程教材研究開發中心(2006k)。義務教育課程標準實驗教科書數學六年級上冊。北京:人民教育出版社。
課程教材研究所小學數學課程教材研究開發中心(2006l)。義務教育課程標準實驗教科書數學六年級下冊。北京:人民教育出版社。
鄧少林、蔣治邦(1994)。三、五年級學生對比較應用問題的分類。國教學報,6,97-114。
蕭弘卿(2009)。國小數學教科書分數乘法教材問題類型與表徵分析。未出版之碩士論文,國立臺中教育大學數學教育研究所,臺中市。
蕭瑞元、楊德清(2013)。台灣與新加坡高年級數學分數教材內容之比較研究。發表於第五屆科技與數學教育國際學術研討會暨數學教學工作坊,國立臺中教育大學數學教育研究所。
鍾榆翎(2008)。以布魯姆認知分類對部編版一年級教科書「數與量」主題分析之研究。國立屏東教育大學數理教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,屏東。















外文部份
Aho, E., Pitkänen, K., &; Sahlberg, P. (2006). Policy Development and Reform Principles of Basic and Secondary Education in Finland since 1968. Retrieved Nov. 11, 2011 from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1099079877269/547664-1099079967208/Education_in_Finland_May06.pdf.
Alajmi, A. (2012). How do elementary textbooks address fractions? A review of mathematics textbooks in the USA, Japan, and Kuwait. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(2), 239-261.
Behr., Wachsmuch. &; Post. (1984). Order and equivalence of rational numbers : A clinical teaching experiment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15 (5), 323-341.
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. Paper represented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Bowers, J. W. (1970). Methods of Research in Communication. Hougton Miffinco Press.
Bradburn, M. B., &; Gilford, D. M. (1990). A framework and principles for international comparative studies in education. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
Cai, J. (2001). Improving mathematics learning: Lessons from cross-national studies of U.S. and Chinese students. Phi Delta Kappan., 82, 400–405.
Cai, J. (2003). What research tells us about teaching mathematics through problem solving. In F. K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Teaching mathematics through problem solving: Prekindergarten-grade 6 (pp. 241–254). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Cai, J. (2005). U.S. and Chinese teachers ’knowing, evaluating, and constructing representations in mathematics instruction. Mathematical Thinkingand Learning., 7, 135–169.
Cai, J., &; Moyer, M. (2008). Developing algebraic thinking in earlier grades: Some insights from international comparative studies. In C. E. Greens &; R. Rubenstein (Eds.), Algebra and algebraic thinking in school mathematics (pp. 169–180). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Cai, J., Moyer, J.C., Wang, N., &; Nie, B. (2010). The development of middle school students’ algebraic thinking in a curricular context: A longitudinal study. In J. Cai, &; E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: Cognitive, curricular, and instructional perspectives. New York: Springer.
Cai, J., Nie, B. (2011). Investigating curricular effect on the teaching and learning of mathematics in a cultural context: Theoretical and methodological considerations. International Journal of Educational Research. 50, 65-70.
Cai, J., Nie, B., &; Moyer, J. (2010). The teaching of equation solving: Approaches in Standards-based and traditional curricula in the United States. Pedagogies: An International Journal. 5(3), 170–186.
Cai, J., Wang, N., Moyer, J. C., Wang, C., &; Nie, B. (2010). Impact of Curriculum Reform: An Analysis of Student Learning Outcomes from the LieCal Project in the United States. Paper represented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Denver, CO.
Chávez, O. (2003). From the textbook to the enacted curriculum: Textbook use in the middle school mathematics classroom (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Order No. 3099613)
Clements, D. H., &; Sarama, J. (2008). Experimental evaluation of the effects of a researchbased preschool mathematics curriculum. American Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 443-494.
Cramer K. A., Post T. R., &; delMas R. C. (2002). Initial fraction learning by fourth- and fifth-grade students: a comparison of the effects of using commercial curricula with the effects of using the rational number project curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(2), 111-144.
Ding, M., &; Li, X. (2010). A Comparative Analysis of the Distributive Property in U.S. and Chinese Elementary Mathematics Textbooks. Cognition And Instruction, 28(2), 146–180.
Dreyfus, T., &; Eisenberg, T. (1996). On different facets of mathematical thinking. In R. J. Sternberg &; T. Ben-Zeev (Eds.), The nature of mathematical thinking (pp. 253-284). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fan, L. (2013). Textbook research as scientific research: towards a common ground on issues and methods of research on mathematics textbooks. ZDM, 45, 765–777.
Fan, L., Wong, N.-Y., Cai, J., &; Li, S. (Eds.). (2004). How Chinese learn mathematics: Perspectives from insiders. Singapore: World Scientific.
Fan, L., &; Zhu, Y. (2000). Problem solving in Singaporean secondary mathematics textbooks. The Mathematics Educator, 5(1/2), 117–141.
Fan, L., &; Zhu, Y. (2007). Representation of problem-solving procedures: A comparative look at China, Singapore, and US mathematics textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 66(1), 61–75.
Fan, L., Zhu, Y., &; Miao, Z. (2013). Textbook research in mathematics education: development status and directions. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(5), 663–646.
Fennell, F. S., &; Rowan, T. (2001). Representation: An important process for teaching and learning mathematics. Teaching Children Mathematics, 7(5), 288-292.
Flanders, J. R. (1994). Textbooks, teachers, and the SIMS test. Journal for Reseach in Mathematics Education, 25(3), 260-278.
Fong, H. K., Ramakrishnan, C., &; Wah, L. P. (2005a). My Pals Are Here! Maths Workbook 1A. Singapore: Federal-Marshall Cavendish Education.
Fong, H. K., Ramakrishnan, C., &; Wah, L. P. (2005b). My Pals Are Here! Maths Workbook 1B. Singapore: Federal-Marshall Cavendish Education.
Fong, H. K., Ramakrishnan, C., &; Choo, M. (2005c). My Pals Are Here! Maths Workbook 2A. Singapore: Federal-Marshall Cavendish Education.
Fong, H. K., Ramakrishnan, C., &; Choo, M. (2005d). My Pals Are Here! Maths Workbook 2B. Singapore: Federal-Marshall Cavendish Education.
Fong, H. K., Ramakrishnan, C., &; Choo, M. (2005e). My Pals Are Here! Maths Workbook 3A. Singapore: Federal-Marshall Cavendish Education.
Fong, H. K., Ramakrishnan, C., &; Choo, M. (2005f). My Pals Are Here! Maths Workbook 3B. Singapore: Federal-Marshall Cavendish Education.
Fong, H. K., Ramakrishnan, C., &; Gan, K. S. (2005g). My Pals Are Here! Maths Workbook 4A. Singapore: Federal-Marshall Cavendish Education.
Fong, H. K., Ramakrishnan, C., &; Gan, K. S. (2005h). My Pals Are Here! Maths Workbook 4B. Singapore: Federal-Marshall Cavendish Education.
Fong, H. K., Ramakrishnan, C., &; Gan, K. S. (2005i). My Pals Are Here! Maths Workbook 5A. Singapore: Federal-Marshall Cavendish Education.
Fong, H. K., Ramakrishnan, C., &; Gan, K. S. (2005j). My Pals Are Here! Maths Workbook 5B. Singapore: Federal-Marshall Cavendish Education.
Fong, H. K., Ramakrishnan, C., &; Gan, K. S. (2005k). My Pals Are Here! Maths Workbook 6A. Singapore: Federal-Marshall Cavendish Education.
Fong, H. K., Ramakrishnan, C., &; Gan, K. S. (2005l). My Pals Are Here! Maths Workbook 6B. Singapore: Federal-Marshall Cavendish Education.
Fuson, K. C., Stigler, J. W., &; Bartsch, K. (1988). Grade placement of addition and subtraction topics in Japan, mainland China, the Soviet Union, Taiwan, and the United States. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(5), 449–456.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education. Boston: The McGraw-Hill.
Ginsburg, A., Leinwand, S., Anstrom, T., &; Pollock, E. (2005). What the United States can learn from Singapore’s world-class mathematics system (and what Singapore learn from the United States): An exploratory study. American Institutes for Research. Retrieved Nov. 11, 2011 from http://www.air.org/news/documents/Singapore.htm.
Goldin, G. A., &; Janvier, C. (1998). Representation and the psychology of mathematics education. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17, 1–4.
Goldstone, R. L., &; Sakamoto, Y. (2003). The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 414–466.
Haggarty, L., &; Pepin, B.(2002).An investigation of mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms: Who gets an opportunity to learn what?. British Educational Research Journal,28(4),567-590.
Herman, R., Boruch, R., Powell, R., Fleischman, S., &; Maynard, R. (2006). Overcoming the challenges: A response to Alan H. Schoenfeld’s “What doesn’t work”. Educational Researcher, 35(2), 22–23.
Howson, G. (1995). Mathematics textbooks: A comparative study of grade 8 texts. TIMSS monograph no. 3. Vancouver: Pacific Educational Press.
Howson, G., Keitel, C., &; Kilpatrick, J. (1981). Curriculum development in mathematics. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jankvist, U. (2010). An empirical study of using history as a ‘goal’. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74, 53–74.
Kaminiski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., &; Heckler, A. F. (2006). Effects of concreteness on representation: An explanation for differential transfer. In R. Sun &; N. Miyake (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference (pp. 1581–1586). Mahwah, NJ: Cognitive Science Society.
Lesh, R., Post, T., &; Behr, M. (1987). Rational number relations and proportions. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problem of representation in teaching and learning of mathematics (pp.41-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ma, L.(1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Markovits, Z., &; Sowder, J. T. (1994). Developing number sense: An intervention study in grade 7. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(1), 4–29.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Menon, R. (2004a). Elementary school children’s number sense [www document]. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Retrieved Nov. 11, 2011 from http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/default.htm
Mesa, V., &; Griffiths, B., (2012). Textbook mediation of teaching: an example from tertiary mathematics instructors. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79, 85–74.
Ministry of Education in Singapore. (2007). 2007 Mathematics (Primary) Syllabus. Singapore: Ministry of Education. Retrieved October 20, 2013 from the Ministry of Education database on the World Wide Web: http://www.moe.edu.sg/education/syllabuses/sciences/files/maths-primary-2007.pdf
Ministry of Education in Singapore. (2013). 2013 Statutory Boards Under The Ministry of Education. Singapore: Ministry of Education. Retrieved October 20, 2013 from the Ministry of Education database on the World Wide Web: http://www.moe.gov.sg/about/#our-vision
Moreno, R., &; Mayer, R. C. (1999). Multimedia-supported metaphors for meaning making in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 215–248.
Murata, A. (2008). Mathematics teaching and learning as a mediating process: The case of tape diagrams. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10, 374–406.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston: NCTM.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: NCTM.
Newton, L. D., Newton, D. P., Blake, A., &; Brown, K. (2002). Do primary school science books for children show a concern for explanatory understanding? Research in Science and Technological Education, 20(2), 227-240.
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, 331-355.
Nie, B., Cai, J., &; Moyer, J. C. (2009). How a Standards-Based mathematics curriculum differs from a traditional curriculum: With a focus on intended treatments of the ideas of variable. ZDM, 41(6), 777-792.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2009).The PISA 2009 assessment framework mathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge and skills.París : OECD.
Resnick, L. B., Cauzinille-Marmeche, E., &; Mathieu, J. (1987). Understanding algebra. In J. Sloboda &; D. Rogers (Eds.), Cognitive processes in mathematics (pp. 169–203). Oxford: Clarendon.
Reys, B. J., Reys, R. E., &; Chavez, O. (2004). Why mathematics textbooks matter. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 61–66.
Reys, R. E., &; Yang, D. C. (1998). Relationship between computational performance and number sense among sixth- and eighth-grade students in Taiwan. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(2), 225–237.
Reys, B. J, Reys, R. E., &; Rubenstein, R. (2010). Mathematics Curriculum: Issue, Trends, and Future, Direction. Seventy-second Yearbook. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Reys, B., Reys, R., &; Koyama, M. (1996). The development of computation in three Japanese primary-grade textbooks. The Elementary School Journal, 96(4), 423–437.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2006). What doesn’t work: The challenge and failure of the works clearinghouse to conduct meaningful reviews of studies of mathematics curricula. Educational Researcher, 35 (2), 13–21.
Schleppenbach, M., Perry, M., Miller, K. F., Sims, L, &; Fang, G. (2007). The answer is only the beginning: Extended discourse in Chinese and U.S. mathematics classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 380-396
Schwarts, J., &; Yerushalmy, M. (1992). Getting students to function in and with algebra. In G. Harel, &; E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (pp. 261–289). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
Senk, S. L., &; Thompson, D.R. (Eds.). (2003). Standards-Based School Mathematics Curricula: What are they? What do students learn? Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Siemon, D., Vitgona, J. &; Cornielle, K. (2001). The middle year numeracy research projects: 5-9. Bundoora, VA: RMIT University.
Son, J. W., &; Senk, S. L. (2010). How reform curricula in the USA and Korea present multiplication and division of fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74, 117-142.
Sparrow, L. (2008). Real and Relevant Mathematics: Is it Realistic in the classroom? APMC:Asia-Pacific Microwave Conference, 13(2).
Stein, M. K., Remillard, J., &; Smith, M. S. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 319–370). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Stigler, J. W., &; Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press.
Stylianides, G. J. (2009). Reasoning-and-Proving in School Mathematics Textbooks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 11, 258-288.
Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Victoria, Australia: Australian Council of Education.
Tarr, J. E., Chávez, O., Reys, R. E., &; Reys, B. J. (2006). From the written to the enacted curricula: The intermediary role of middle school mathematics teachers in shaping students’ opportunity to learn. School Science and Mathematics, 106(4), 191–201.
Tornroos, J. (2004). Mathematics Textbooks, Opportunity to Learn and Achievement. ICME-10M, Discussion Group 14 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Uttal, D. H., Liu, L. L., &; Deloache, J. S. (1999). Taking a hard look at concreteness: Do concrete objects help young children learn symbolic relations? In C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Ed.), Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues (pp. 177–192). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., &; Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the book: Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Verschaffel, L. (2002). Taking the modelling perspective seriously at the elementary school level: promises and pitfalls. In A. Cockburn &; E. Nardi (Eds.), Proceedings of 26th annual meeting of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (pp, Vol. 1, pp. 64–80). Norwich: University of East Anglia.
Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., &; De Corte, E. (2007). Whole number concepts and operations. In F. Lester (Ed.), Handbook of research in mathematics teaching and learning (2nd ed., pp. 557–628). New York, NY: MacMillan.
Willis, G. B., &; Fuson, K. C. (1988). Teaching children to use schematic drawings to solve addition and subtraction word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 192–201.
Wong, N.Y., Lam, C.C. &; Chan, C.S. (2002). The current state of the “lived space” of mathematics learning. Hiroshima Journal of Mathematics Education, 10, 27-52.
Wu, H. (1997). The mathematics education reform: Why you should be concerned and what you can do. American Mathematical Monthly, 104, 946-954.
Wu, H. (2005). Key mathematical ideas in grades 5–8. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the NCTM, Anaheim, CA. Retrieved September 12, 2005 from http://math.berkeley.edu/∼wu/NCTM2005a.pdf.
Xin, Y. P. (2007). Word problem solving tasks in textbooks and their relation to student performance. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(6), 347–360.
Yang, D. C., &; Li, M. N. (2008). An investigation of 3rd grade Taiwanese students’ performance in number sense. Educational Studies, 34(5), 443–455.
Yang, D. C., Reys, R. E., &; Wu, L. L. (2010). Comparing how fractions were developed in textbooks used by the 5th- and 6th-graders in Singapore, Taiwan, and the U.S.A. School Science and Mathematics, 110(3), 118-127.
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 theUnited States. International JournalofScienceandMathematicsEducation, 4, 609–626.

連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 林俊吉、吳毓瑩、呂玉琴(2009)。分數概念題庫之建立:跨學習階段的校準與測量。教育研究與發展期刊,5(4),187-218。
2. 林俊吉、吳毓瑩、呂玉琴(2009)。分數概念題庫之建立:跨學習階段的校準與測量。教育研究與發展期刊,5(4),187-218。
3. 徐偉民、徐于婷(2009)。國小數學教科書代數教材之內容分析:台灣與香港之比較。教育實踐與研究,22(2),67-94。
4. 徐偉民、徐于婷(2009)。國小數學教科書代數教材之內容分析:台灣與香港之比較。教育實踐與研究,22(2),67-94。
5. 許良榮(1996)。圖形與科學課文學習關係的探討。教育研究資訊,4,121-131 頁。
6. 許良榮(1996)。圖形與科學課文學習關係的探討。教育研究資訊,4,121-131 頁。
7. 陳嘉皇(2009)。影響學童不同數學表徵樣式一般化表現因素之研究。崑山科技大學人文暨社會科學學報創刊號,59-82。
8. 陳嘉皇(2009)。影響學童不同數學表徵樣式一般化表現因素之研究。崑山科技大學人文暨社會科學學報創刊號,59-82。
9. 楊德清、施怡真、徐偉民、尤欣涵 (2011)。台灣、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。
10. 楊德清、施怡真、徐偉民、尤欣涵 (2011)。台灣、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。
11. 楊德清、陳仁輝 (2011)。台灣、美國和新加坡三個七年級代數課程發展學生數學能力方式之研究。科學教育學刊,19(1),43-61。
12. 楊德清、陳仁輝 (2011)。台灣、美國和新加坡三個七年級代數課程發展學生數學能力方式之研究。科學教育學刊,19(1),43-61。
13. 鄧少林、蔣治邦(1994)。三、五年級學生對比較應用問題的分類。國教學報,6,97-114。
14. 鄧少林、蔣治邦(1994)。三、五年級學生對比較應用問題的分類。國教學報,6,97-114。