【作者】 吴琼；

【导师】 陆新生；

【作者基本信息】 上海师范大学 ， 课程与教学论， 2010， 硕士

【副题名】以上教版和东京书籍版为例

【摘要】 日本在二战后短短几十年时间里,不仅在经济水平上居于世界前列,在数学课程方面也是“进步最快的国家”。正在进行第二次课程改革的我们不妨以此为鉴,取长补短。教材改革是基础教育课程改革的核心环节,所以,我们认为研究两国教材的差异很有意义,并选择了上海教育出版社的《数学》及相应的课程标准(以下简称《标准》)和日本东京书籍出版社的《新数学》和《中学校课程指导要领(数学篇)》(以下简称《要领》)为蓝本。本文采用文献分析法、比较法、统计法展开教材的比较。研究以比较教育学为理论基础,采用定性比较为主,从两国教材的课程目标设置、教材内容、教材结构、数学概念的引入及教材中数学史的使用进行了比较,又从习题的难度以定量比较为辅,对两国教材中基本模块之一的“方程与代数”进行多维度比较,具体的差异如下:在课程目标设置上,我国《标准》侧重数学思维的培养,日本《要领》则侧重数学的应用;在教材内容方面:上教版教材在知识广度大于东京书籍的教材,内容先于日方教材,但日方在内容上更注重数学与现实的联系;在组织结构上,日方教材的编写体例比较丰富,采用直线前进的编排方式,而我国则以螺旋式上升的方式;在数学概念引入方面:我国教材中使用的策略比日方的更丰富;在教材中引用的数学史:数学史在我国教材中使用更广,但两国选用的数学史都体现了地域性,偏好东方古代数学史。在习题难度方面:本文基本采用鲍建生的综合难度模型统计数据,并获得如下结果:日本在习题数量上多与中国,但在难度上低于我国的教材。从以上几方面的比较中,我们获得了结论:日方“方程与代数”教材的难度不及我国教材。而造成两国教材难度差异的成因除了文化传统因素的影响外,主要还受到课程理念、历史经验的启示及社会的需要这几方面影响。比较的结果可以为我们的数学课程改革提供启示:在保持传统优势的同时,教材在内容选取上应注意实用性;在习题选用上要注意其蕴含的背景因素;教师的观念转变是保障数学课程顺利实施的关键。更多还原

【Abstract】 During a few decades after World War II, Japan leads the world not only in itseconomy, but also in its Mathematics curriculum. China, in its second educationalreform, might as well draw the strong points of theirs to offset our own weaknesses.Because the reform of maths materials is the core of our educational reform, this paperis a comparative study of Chinese and Japanese mathematics textbooks which uses"Equation and Algebra" courses as an example in middle school. We use the textbookswhich named "new mathematics" pressed by Tokyo Shoseki Co.,Ltd., and"mathematics" pressed by Shanghai Educational Press to compare the content from anall-around point of view. The study use Chinese "Curriculum Standards" and Japanese"Guide essentials" as a model and get some points.In this paper, the methods of literature reviewing, statistics are widely used. Inthe paper, the aim, the contents, the structure .etc are compared with qualitative methodbased on comparative education compared. And we use a quantative method to measuredifficulty of the problems. We get such points: First, the two countries require differenttreatments from the aim of the course. Second, from the content, Chinese textbooks hasa larger field than Japanese, but Japanese textbooks use more vivid examples from thereal world. Third, compared from the structure of the textbooks, Japanese editionprepares the way linearly, but ours is closer to the spiral. Forth, the way to introducenew concepts and theories in our textbooks is more various than in Japanese. Fifth, theuse of the mathematic history in Chinese is superior to in Japanese. Sixth, we use amodel-which is made by Bao Jiansheng -to evaluate the composite difficulty ofmathematical problems and get the conclusion: the mathematical problems in ourtextbook are more difficult and less than in Japanese.Then we get the main view: our maths textbooks are difficult than Japanese’s.Besides culturalfactor which may cause the difference, we discuss main reasons from theaim of the curriculum, the need of the societyandsoon.The conclusions from the comparison have a certain reference value for improvingthe primary mathematics curriculum. First, selectionsofsubjectmattershouldbepracticalandreasonable for sutdents. Second, renewal of ideas of teachers are important to the reformprocess.更多还原