The Comparative Research On Textbook About The Curriculum Content Of Space And Figure

In the new reform of mathematics curriculum in the elementary education, the geometry curriculum, especially in the third study section(Grade7-Grade9), based on "Mathematics Curriculum Standard of the Full-time Compulsory Education (Experiment Manuscript)" (following we will abbreviate it "Curriculum Standard" )has changed a lot in curriculum goal, curriculum content, curriculum organization and structure and so on. Regarding this, the domestic scholars have carried on widespread argument, the focal point of the argument is that: How to design the geometry curriculum especially the inference and proof more reasonably? In the practice, facing that change, teachers who have been influenced deeply by the conventional geometry feel puzzled, they can't grasp it accurately, and they don't how should teach and teach any degree. All of the problems indicate that it is very necessary to do the deep research on the space and figure.We embark from the view of textbook, take four versions textbooks in junior middle school for example; they are the version of People's Education, the version of East China Normal University, the version of Beijing Normal University and the version of Jiangsu Keji. According to "Curriculum Standard", we use the content analysis and the comparative method; carry on the quantitative evaluation and the qualitative analysis on the content of space and figure of the four versions textbooks, from the knowledge clue and the logical clue. Through the research, we obtain the following conclusions:First, in the knowledge clue: We get the difference in curriculum extent, depth and difficulty between the four versions textbooks and "Curriculum Standard": The four versions textbooks achieve "Curriculum Standard" mostly in the curriculum extent, depth and difficulty, and some content is a little higher than that of "Curriculum Standard". And the curriculum breadth and curriculum depth of the version of People's Education, the version of Beijing Normal University and the version of Jiangsu Keji is higher, but the curriculum breadth and curriculum depth of the version of East China Normal University is the smallest; the curriculum difficulty of the version of People's Education is the smallest, the curriculum difficulty of the version of Beijing Normal University and the version of Jiangsu Keji is the smaller, and the curriculum difficulty of the version of East China Normal University is the largest. In spot, line, plane, angle, cross line and parallel line, triangle, circle, view and projection, axial symmetry, rotation, space and coordinate and so on, the four versions textbooks, basing on the "Curriculum Standard", all adjust the breadth and the depth certainly in some content. However, according to the knowledge structure and the logical system of geometry, the adjustment which does to "Curriculum Standard" is acceptable mostly. Second, in the logical clue, we obtaine: Four versions textbooks all take the figure understanding as the carrier, and show the content according to the order of reasons things out - - the simple inference - - proof with the way of screw rising. Of course, each version textbook also has the characteristic on the design of figure and proof. The version of People's Education although manifestes some characteristic of experience geometry consciously, it manifestes the characteristic of synthetic geometry more obviously; The version of East China Normal University although manifestes some characteristic of synthetic geometry, but it manifests the characteristic of experience geometry more obviously; Both the version of Beijing Normal University and the version of Jiangsu keji value the reasonable inference and the logic inference very much, but comparatively speaking, the version of Beijing Normal University manifests the characteristic of synthetic geometry, while manifestes some characteristic of direct-viewing geometry prominently, the version of Jiangsu manifests the characteristic of synthetic geometry, while manifestes some characteristic of experiment geometry prominently.Based on the research, we may discover that no matter the textbook, or the teaching book (reference book), even "Curriculum Standard" has certain problems in space and figure in the third study section. Therefore, in view of the development of the space and figure in the third study section, we propose some opinion and suggestions following:First, the textbook should seek for superior way to design the geometry curriculum, to overcome the malpractice of uncoordinated between the knowledge clue and the logical clue. Second, the editors of textbook should carefully read the stipulation and the request of "Curriculum Standard" on the space and figure, to enhance the goodness of fit between textbook and "Curriculum Standard".Third, the textbook presents style of space and figure is diverse, and it is not only restricted in the present style, pursueing own characteristic and style is the development soul of textbook;Fourth, in follows under the premise which "Curriculum Standard" requests, it is permited for the textbook to have the stress to the different area, but should pay attention to distribute the curriculum time rationaliy;Fifth, the teaching book (reference book) should do further in the aspects of the language performance rigorous and the explanation and showing about the design and the aim of textbook, so as to display the function of instruction and reference fully.In addition, we should also revise and consummate the stipulation and the request of certain content in space and figure in "Curriculum Standard", to increase its feasibility, and to instruct textbook compilation and teaching well.