Empirical Study On Relations Between "Levels Of Textbook Use By Teacher" And Teaching Effects

“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.