透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.138.138.144
  • 學位論文

桃園市高中數學教師對99高中數學課程綱要意見之調查研究

A Survey Research of Teachers’ Opinions on 99 Curriculum for High School Mathematics in Taoyuan City

指導教授 : 袁媛

摘要


本研究目的在於瞭解99高中數學課綱實施後,現場教師對課程內容之意見,包含教材內容之「刪除」、「新增」、「弱化」及「章節位置調整」,並探討現場教師對新課綱在教學實務影響的看法。研究樣本選取與中原大學結盟的桃園市9所高中之數學教師72人,並以自編的「高中教師對99高中數學課綱的認知與看法之調查問卷」收集資料。 研究結果發現: 一、 教師對於教材內容之「刪除」部分大多是支持態度,但對於將「二次曲線與直線的關係」、「圓錐曲線的光學性質」、「球」內容刪除持反對立場。 二、 教師對於教材內容之「新增」部分大多是支持的,只反對新增「統計及隨機變數」的內容。 三、 教師對於教材內容之「弱化」部分,均為支持態度。 四、 教師對於教材內容之調整部分大多為反對態度,只有在對「安排每一冊有一個學習主題」及「將演算法(整數的輾轉相除法、二分逼近法)放入第二冊附錄中」是支持的。 五、 教師對於99高中數學課綱對學校教學實務之影響,大部分為支持態度,只對於「課綱各冊編排的學習份量」表示不恰當。

並列摘要


The purpose of this study was to understand teachers’ opinions to curriculum after the implement of the 99 curriculum for high school mathematics. It includes deletion, addition, reduction, adjustment of curriculum. The researcher also studies teachers’ opinions regarding to the effects of the 99 curriculum on practical instruction in school. Data were collected from 72 samples in 9 schools in Taoyuan city by questionnaires designed by the researcher. The results of this study were as follows : 1. Most of teachers support to deletion of curriculum, but oppose the deletion of topics including quadratic and linear relationship, the optical properties of quadratic, and ball. 2. Most of teachers support the addition of curriculum, but oppose the addition of statistics and random variable. 3. Teachers support the reduction of curriculum. 4. Most of teachers are oppose to the adjustment of curriculum, only support the idea that each volume has a learning topic and algorithm to be shown involume II appendix. 5. Most of teachers agree with positive effects of the 99 curriculum on practical instruction in school, however, they seem to concern inequalities of content between volumes.

參考文獻


甄曉蘭、李涵鈺(2009)。理想與現實的落差:偏遠國中實施九年一貫課程的困惑與處境。教育研究集刊,55(3),67-98。
楊龍立(2012)。中央課程計畫的命名。國教新知,59(4),59-70。
張樹倫、陳琦媛(2006)。高中課程暫行綱要修訂的經過、特色與建議。課程與教學季刊,9 (1),1-18。
鍾靜(1999)。落實小學數學新課程之意圖與學校本位的進修活動。課程與教學季刊,2(1),15-34。
Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5-12.

延伸閱讀