A Comparative Study On Difficulty Of Middle School Geometry Curricula Between 1^st & 2^nd Curriculum Reform In Shanghai

In order to understand that in the Shanghai two curriculum reforms, what kind of change appeared in the request of content difficulty in the curriculum, the author decided to do a research on the geometry content of the 1^st and 2^nd curriculum reforms in Shanghai. The main problem of the research is:1. Based on the literature, how to seek a reasonable method to appraise the difficulty of the geometry curriculum?2. Based on the request of the curriculum standard and the textbooks, what kind of change is made in the requests of middle school geometry content of 1^st and 2^nd curriculum reforms in Shanghai?3. Observing the teacher's classroom practice, how difficult the implementation curriculum of geometry curriculum of 2^nd curriculum reform in Shanghai from the angle of the teacher using sample question and the unit test questions?This research will use the curriculum difficulty coefficient model to make a difficulty comparison with two mathematics curriculum standards of Shanghai in the 1990s and at the beginning of the century and in the corresponding teaching material "Geometry Provement". Also we made a little revision to Bao Jiansheng's "comprehensive difficulty model", and built up "the geometry questions comprehensive difficulty model". We used the model to conduct the difficulty research in the examples and exercises in the 1^st and 2^nd textbooks correspondence content (see the table 5.2), the sample questions that two 8 grade teachers used in teaching 19^th chapter "Geometry Provement" of 2^nd textbook, the unit test questions, as well as the geometry test questions in the high school entrance examinations in recent years.According to the curriculum standard text comparison, 1^st geometry curriculum difficulty coefficient is higher than 2^nd geometry curriculum difficulty coefficient as a whole the conclusion, but in comparing some certain chapters, for instance "Geometry Provement", also will possibly obtain 1^st curriculum difficulty coefficient is lower than 2^nd curriculum difficulty coefficient the conclusion.By using the geometry questions comprehensive difficulty model, we figured the examples and exercises in 1^st and 2^nd textbooks, the unit test question, test question of high school entrance examinations, the examples that the teachers used. We found the models situation is very similar, presents heavily "Investigation", "Reasoning", "Topic Coverage"; Lightly "Context", "Graphical Representation", "Computation" "Left Deviation" situation. But looking from the sole dimension, the first 5 volume of 2^nd textbooks (Only 5 volume has been published and used) are obviously highly than 1^st textbooks in "Topic Coverage" and slightly higher than 1^st textbooks in "Investigation", while they are slightly lower in the other four dimensions. High school entrance examinations is obviously higher than 1^st and 2^nd textbooks in "Investigation", "Graphical Representation", "Computation", "Reasoning" these four factors, is lower than 1^st and 2^nd textbooks in "Content", and it is higher than 1^st textbooks while lower than 2^nd textbooks in "Topic Coverage".After obversing 2 teachers teaching "Geometry Provement", we found that the classroom instruction obviously is lower than the correspondence content of 2^nd textbooks and the unit test in "Investigation" and "Topic Coverage". It is also lower than the correspondence content of 2^nd textbooks and the unit test in "Reasoning" and is higher than the correspondence content of 2^nd textbooks and the unit test in "Computation". "Content" is almost same as textbooks and the unit testing, while "Graphical Representation" is slightly higher than the correspondence content of 2^nd textbooks. As to this chapter, generally speaking, two teacher's practice curriculum difficulties are lower than 2^nd textbooks.Finally, this author gave several ponders based on the research.