A Comparative Study On The Solid Geometry Forum Before And After New Mathematics Curriculum Of High School

At the beginning of the 21st century, a new round of mathematics curriculum reform has been started in our country. The landmark initiative is that Mathematics Teaching Syllabus for Full-time High School (Test Revised Version) (hereafter referred to as Outline) revised in 1999 has been replaced by High School Mathematics Curriculum Standards (Experimental)(hereafter referred to as Standard) developed in 2003. Standard has given a brand new explanation for curriculum philosophy, objectives, structure, style and other aspects. Old Materials issued under the guidance of Outline has some differences from New Materials issued under the guidance of Standard in reflecting curriculum philosophy, achieving curriculum targets and requirements.Solid geometry, an important branch of mathematics, plays a significance role in developing students' geometric thinking, training students' spatial imagination and logical reasoning abilities. The survey found that many teachers and students have various difficulties constraining teaching effectiveness in teaching and learning solid geometry. Therefore, the comparative study on the Solid Geometry Forum before and after New Curriculum is beneficial in telling the differences between new and old curriculum philosophy, targets; analyzing and coming the answer of which materials is better in promoting the teaching of solid geometry by teachers and the studying by students.This paper adopts such methods as document retrieval, surveys, content analysis in a research perspective of "teaching" and "learning" to explore the guiding philosophy, structure, knowledge capacity, depth of content, applications and the form of text presentation of solid geometry from inside and outside of the course content. The above six dimensions have been constructed through such standards as questionnaire and interview, the students' cognitive development, relating theory in pedagogical psychology, respectively, comparative researches have been conducted between the old and new curriculum according to the six dimensions of standards.It is concluded from the research that the guiding philosophy of the new curriculum, more specific, utilizing, and operational, focused on the medium measure, with a better reflection of the quality education. The deduction method in the new course is contrary to the old course, respectively suitable for "field-independent-type " and "field dependent-type" students. the knowledge coverage remains almost the same between the two, while the knowledge points reduced obviously in the new curriculum The new course has more content and much more difficult. Both of them are linked with many subject areas, but the frequency of the new is significantly larger than the old, with a more fully application. The new course adds "think", "observation" "Inquiry" and other columns and graphics, and its text is demonstrated in more varied forms. In summary, the new curriculum lays more emphasis on the students' dominant position, on the students' comprehensive and individualized development. As for the teaching methods, the new courses has provided a specific, operational and selective strong basis for the integration of course content, the implementation of teaching and other aspects, and is more useful of the teaching and learning in solid geometry.The improvement and further study has been raised to the materials, teachers, and students based on the research conclusion.