【作者】 严家丽；

【导师】 孔凡哲；

【作者基本信息】 东北师范大学 ， 课程与教学论， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 教科书是课程的重要物化形式和载体，“教师使用教科书”隶属于课程实施领域。随着2001年开始的新一轮基础教育课程改革的实施，尤其是“一标多本”教科书政策的确立，教师与教科书、课程标准之间的关系重新得到审视。教师如何使用教科书，涉及到新课程实施质量的好坏。人们通常在关注课程实施过程的同时，更关注课程实施的结果。“教师使用教科书水平”与课堂教学效果之间的关系，至今尚无人涉及。本研究将“教师使用教科书水平与课堂教学效果之间的关系”作为研究主题，并认同“通过全国中小学教材审定委员会审查的教科书，符合（基本符合）相应学科的课程标准”。研究以北师版教科书为例，经过理论分析和实践调研，提出以下研究假设：前提性假设：在一定时间范围内，研究对象的“教科书使用水平”基本趋于稳定；关系性假设1：“教科书使用水平”高的教师，学生课堂参与度越高，学生的数学课堂情感越积极，学生对新知的关系性理解程度越高，但学生对新知的操作性理解程度未必更高；关系性假设2：“教科书使用水平”高的教师，学生的数学学习态度较为积极，数学观比较开阔，问题解决能力比较强，但学生的数学期末测试成绩未必更有优势。研究主要采用质化分析方法，并辅以量化分析方法。综合运用课堂观察法、聚焦式访谈法、问卷调查法、测试法、建模法等进行资料的收集，同时采用编码分析、项目分析、验证性因子分析、方差分析等手段进行资料的整理与假设的验证。研究过程包括五个阶段：（1）研究工具的制定。通过理论建构、文献梳理、课堂观察、课后访谈、专家咨询等手段，修订、开发、选择恰当的研究工具；（2）前提性假设的验证过程。采取随机分层抽样方法，抽取研究对象，在第一学期和第二学期分别听一次课（常规新授课），比较教师两次测评的“教科书使用水平”前后是否具有差异；（3）针对全体研究对象的“教师使用教科书水平”的评定；（4）从“当堂效果”和“学期效果”两个维度刻画课堂教学效果。当堂教学效果包括学生的课堂参与度，学生的数学课堂情感，学生对新知的操作性理解程度以及关系性理解程度，学期教学效果包括学生的数学学习态度、数学观、问题解决能力以及数学期末测试成绩；（5）从“当堂效果”和“学期效果”两个维度，探究“教师使用教科书水平”与课堂教学效果之间的关系，验证关系性假设1和关系性假设2。（一）研究获得的直接结论：1．凭借自主开发的“学生课堂参与度”测评工具及测试题，对“教科书使用较低水平”、“教科书使用中等水平”和“教科书使用较高水平”的“当堂教学效果”进行追踪考察。结果表明，关系性假设1大部分成立：（1）“教科书使用水平”高的教师，学生的课堂参与度越高，且“中等水平”和“较高水平”教师的“学生课堂参与度”逐渐趋于稳定；（2）“教科书使用水平”高的教师，学生的数学课堂情感越积极；（3）“教科书使用水平”高的教师，学生对新知的操作性理解程度越高；（4）对相同的教学内容来说，“教科书使用水平”高的教师，学生对新知的关系性理解程度越高。2．研究利用《数学学习态度量表》、《数学观量表》、编制的开放测试题以及期末统考成绩，对30个班的“学期教学效果”进行了考察和分析，发放问卷1550份，回收有效问卷1533份，结果表明，关系性假设2部分成立：（1）“教师使用教科书水平”对“学生数学学习态度”没有显著的正向预测作用；（2）“教师使用教科书水平”对“学生数学观”没有显著的正向预测作用；（3）“教师使用教科书水平”对“学生问题解决能力”存在显著的正向预测作用；（4）“教师使用教科书水平”对“学生数学期末测试成绩”没有显著的正向预测作用。（二）研究获得的其它相关结论3.从个案校随机选择三位数学教师，对其“教科书使用水平”进行测试，结果表明，细化后的“教师使用教科书水平”测量模型具有良好的信度和效度；4.采取随机分层抽样方法，从个案校三、四、五年级中选出三位教师，前后两次“教科书使用水平”的测评结果表明，前提性假设成立，即在一定时间范围内，研究对象的“教师使用教科书水平”基本趋于稳定；5.自主开发的“学生课堂参与度”刻画方法和比较模型，能较为客观地刻画学生在一堂课中的参与状况，以及实现不同课堂“学生参与度”的横向比较。综上研究，教师在课堂上能否创造性地使用教科书，对促进学生数学学习的操作性理解和关系性理解、提高学生数学课堂参与度、提高学生的问题解决能力，以及形成积极的数学情感和开阔的数学观有重要作用，因而，提高教师使用教科书的水平，是十分必要的。对个案校的相关建议：学校需要进一步完善教学评价机制，进一步完善与教科书配套的软硬件设施，学校领导应积极关注新课程的实施过程，加强教学研讨的针对性，进一步调整学生作息制度，改善学校周边环境。对课程实施质量保障的相关启示有：提高课程标准自身的清晰度，提高教科书与课程标准的吻合度，提高“教师使用教科书”的水平，提高数学学业评价与课程标准的一致性。更多还原

【Abstract】 “Textbook” is one important materialized form and carrier of curriculum.“Textbook useby teacher” belongs to curriculum implementation area. Along with the implementation ofNew Round Basic Education Curriculum Reform which officially started in2001, especiallywith the affirmation of “one unified syllabus, multiple textbook versions” textbook policy,relations between teachers, textbooks and syllabus have been reexamined and reconsideredby people since then. How teachers use textbook in classroom is critical to quality ofcurriculum implementation. As we all know, when people focus on the process of curriculumimplementation, they are more concerned with the results of curriculum implementation.However, relations between “levels of textbook use by teacher” and teaching effects have notbeen studied until now.Therefore, the research theme is,“relations between ‘levels of textbook use by teacher’and teaching effects”. We assume that textbooks having passed censorship of NationalPrimary and Middle School Textbook Review Committee accord with the CurriculumStandards of corresponding subject. Taking example of textbooks released by Beijing NormalUniversity Press, based on the theoretical analysis and survey, the study put forward threehypotheses:Prevailing hypothesis: within a certain period of time,“levels of textbook use” byteachers from the school tended to be stable;Relation hypothesis1: if “levels of textbook use by teacher” were higher, then students’classroom participation would be more active, students’ classroom affections would be morepositive, students’ relational understanding of new knowledge would be more profound andlasting, but students’ operational understanding of new knowledge would make no difference.Relation hypothesis2: if “levels of textbook use by teacher” were higher, then students’mathematics learning attitudes would be more positive, students’ mathematics views wouldbe more open, students’ problem-solving abilities would be stronger, but students’mathematics academic achievements would make no difference.In this study, qualitative analysis methods were primary and quantitative analysismethods were auxiliary. Comprehensively applied methods of classroom observation, focusedinterview, questionnaire survey, test and modeling to collect data we needed. Besides, weadopted coding analysis, project analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, variance analysis andother means for data sorting and hypotheses verification.There were five stages in the research:(1) establishment of research tools. Through theoretical construction, literature review, classroom observation, interviews and expertconsultation to select appropriate research tools;(2) verification of prevailing hypothesis.Taking the stratified sampling and random sampling methods to select several teachers fromthe school, then researchers used the model to measure teachers’ levels of textbook use, eachtwice, one was in the first semester and the other was in the second semester. After that,compared each teacher’s twice measurement results to find that if levels of textbook use werestable;(3) the measurement of “levels of textbook use by teacher” for all the research objects;(4) teaching effects measurement from classroom and term dimensions. Classroom teachingeffects included degrees of students’ classroom participation, students’ classroom affections,students’ operational understanding and relational understanding of new knowledge. Termteaching effects included students’ mathematics learning attitudes, students’ mathematicsviews, students’ problem-solving abilities and mathematics academic achievements;(5)exploration of relations between “levels of textbook use by teachers” and teaching effects,from classroom and term dimensions.Direct conclusions of the study were as follows:1. We conducted microanalyses of classroom teaching effects of typical lessons fromteachers with “lower textbook use level”,“average textbook use level” and “higher textbookuse level” with the self-developed students’ classroom participation measurement tool andtests. We found that most of hypothesis1was established.(1) The higher were “levels of textbook use by teacher”, the more active would bestudents’ classroom participation, and degrees of students’ participation would tend to bestable at average and higher textbook use level;(2) if teachers embodied higher “levels oftextbook use”, students would have more positive classroom affections, and the hypothesiswas established;(3) if teachers embodied higher “levels of textbook use”, students’operational understanding levels of new knowledge would be higher, and the hypothesis wasnot established;(4) as to the same content, the higher were “levels of textbook use byteacher”, the higher would be students’ relational understanding levels of new knowledge,and the hypothesis was mainly established.2. The study used Mathematics Learning Attitudes Scale and Mathematics Views Scale,open-ended tests and final tests to obtain30classes’ term teaching results. In total, the studyhanded out1550questionnaires and recycled1533effective questionnaires. The explorationof relations between “levels of textbook use by teacher” and term teaching effects showedthat part of relation hypothesis2was established.(1)“Levels of textbook use by teachers” had no significant positive prediction effects onstudents’ mathematics learning attitudes;(2)“levels of textbook use by teachers” had nosignificant positive prediction effects on students’ mathematics views;(3)“levels of textbookuse by teachers” had significant positive prediction effects on students’ problem-solving abilities;(4)“levels of textbook use by teachers” had no significant positive prediction effectson students’ mathematics academic achievements.Other relevant conclusions were:3. Randomly selected three teachers from the school, and their test results of “levels oftextbook use” showed that the revised “levels of textbook use by teachers” measurementmodel had a good reliability and validity;4. Taking the stratified sampling and random sampling methods, selected three teachersfrom grade3to grade5, their twice measurement results of “levels of textbook use” showedthat hypothesis1was established, that was, levels of textbook use by teachers from theselected school tended to be stable;5. The self-developed “students’ classroom participation measurement and comparativemodel” could objectively describe students’ classroom participation of one lesson, andconduct a horizontal comparison between different lessons.In conclusion, whether teachers can creatively use mathematics textbooks in theclassroom will be critical to students’ operational understanding and relational understandingof mathematics, active participation in mathematics class, problem-solving abilities andpositive mathematics affections. Therefore, it is very necessary for teachers to improve theirlevels of textbook use.In addition, there are some suggestions for the research school: the school needs tofurther improve the teaching evaluation mechanism, further improve supporting hardware andsoftware facilities of textbooks; school leaders should pay more attentions to implementationof new curriculum reform, strengthen the teaching pertinence, further adjust students’ studyand rest system, and improve school peripheral environment.There are some inspirations for quality assurance of curriculum implementation: toimprove clarity of curriculum standards, to improve the consistency of textbooks andcurriculum standards, to improve the level of textbook use by teacher, to improve theconsistency of academic evaluations and curriculum standards.更多还原